The Austrian economical school did not represent a uniform imagination of the state. The demands of classical liberals clashed with the libertarian definition of freedom and coercion. What is the concept of state F. A. von Hayek? Why did he view socialism as the most harmful strategy in the world? What deformities of democracy did he inform against? And finally, what charges did his chief critics make?
Friedrich August von Hayek, Austrian philosopher and economist, student Ludwig von Mises, doctor in law and political discipline enrolled in past as the only typical of the Austrian economical school to receive the Nobel Prize. His views had a immense impact on the improvement and dissemination of the principles of classical liberalism, which were most successful in the 2 states: the United States under Ronald Reagan (1980-1988) and the United Kingdom during the word of office by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from 1979 to 1990. This is what we (conservatives) believe – said British Prime Minister at the home of Commons gathering throwing Hayek's Constitution of Freedom on the table. A consistent promoter of liberalism inspired politicians from all over the planet with his unwavering belief in the power of the free market. Hayek's flagship works: “The Way to Enslavement”, “The Lost Pride of Reason. On the mistakes of socialism, or the Constitution of Freedom, they contain ideas consisting of the concept of a state, based to a large degree on criticism of socialist solutions and on proposing their own to defend the freedom and improvement of the individual.
Worst political solutions, which are?
A. von Hayek was a determined opponent of a socialist state, claiming the right to centrally decide on all aspects of human life. After planet War II, he focused on analysing the political implications of central governance in the West, which socialists besides continued after the war ended. Under the influence of this phenomenon, Hayek wrote a book in which he powerfully criticized the top-down management of the economy by the government – it was “The Way to Enslave”. In a work dedicated to “socialists of all parties”, he argues that state control of the economy yet ends with the failure of freedom – first economic, then political. This leads to a situation in which society begins to look for a strong leader – a dictator who will solve all problems, and this causes the improvement of a totalitarian system. Economic control is not only the control of a certain sector of human life, which can be separated from the remainder – it is the control of the resources needed to accomplish all goal we have. wrote Hayek in “The Way to Enslavement”. He argued that the implementation of the socialist state rules would endanger political freedoms and democracy, and so stressed that the marketplace should be freed to prevent excessive concentration of power in the hands of politicians.
Hayek was very serious about the dangers of socialism, claiming that it was against Western civilization and undermining its pillars. Socialism is based on collectivism, collectivism negates individualism, and whoever negates individualism negates Western civilization – he wrote. It points to concrete examples of countries where central management has affected all areas of human life: Not by accident in totalitarian countries, whether in Russia, Germany or Italy, the issue of organising free time for citizens has become 1 of the problems covered by planning. Germany has even invented for this substance an awful, internally contradictory name Freizeitgestaltung – shaping ways of utilizing free time by people as if there could inactive be free time erstwhile it must be utilized in the manner recommended by the authorities – noted in “The Way to Enslavement”.
F. A. von Hayek besides draws attention to the danger of socialism's assumptions affecting labour issues. He warned that a situation in which workplaces stay solely in the hands of the state could lead to a refusal of employment for political reasons. The thought developed in the Constitution of Freedom: The full employment monopoly that would be in a full socialist state where the government is the sole employer and owner of all production tools would affect unlimited coercion. As Lew Trocki noted: in a country where the only employer is simply a state, the opposition means slow starvation. The old rule; whoever does not work, does not eat, replaces a fresh one: who does not obey does not eat.
One of Hayek's most criticized concepts of socialism was "social justice", which he judged to be irrational and demoralizing. He powerfully cut himself off from this thought and felt that its implementation was causing antisocial phenomena. The concept of justice can mention only to an individual, not to the market, or to the full society or nation. The foundation of social development, or free individuals, is equality before the law, alternatively than artificially created material equality. Hayek stresses that any income redistribution from 1 citizen to another is contrary to the thought of justice and cannot be reconciled with the concept of the regulation of law due to the fact that it frequently involves political interests, appeasement of various social groups as electoral clients.
F. A. von Hayek argued that the intent of the state strategy is not to give people justice or prosperity, but simply to be fair to the general public, which is only possible under conditions of freedom under the regulation of law. According to Hayek, income inequality, which is natural and just, is besides the best incentive for the improvement of individuals. The request for material equality can only be met by a government endowed with totalitarian power He stressed in “The Way to Enslavement”.
What's the threat of democracy?
In Law, government and Liberty, F. A. von Hayek acknowledged the peaceful making of changes, gaining advantage by 1 of the opposing opinions without utilizing force. In spite of these affirmative aspects, he saw the shortcomings of the democratic system, which could encourage its distortion. What threats and deformities of democracy have Hayek diagnosed?
Firstly, he pointed out that the imbalance in the proportions between the various authorities led to the distortion of the essence of democracy. In concrete terms, it is about the effects of common ownership of the powers of state authorities. Although this is not formal, it is simply a departure from the rule of 3 divisions of power. Distortion of the proportion of authorities can trust on the superiority of the legislative authority over executives, as the tendency of parliament is to take full power and claim the right to represent the full society. A single authority may not only prove ineffective but may besides lead to the despotism of the majority. Hayek in “Law, government and Liberty” points out that erstwhile the authorities are united in the hands of only 1 typical body, then there is simply a disorder of the tripartition of power and a violation of specified an essential rule for him check and balance. Consequently, the regulation of law and the functioning of the government are distorted. On the another hand, the imbalance in proportion may consist in an effort to take over the functions of the legislator by the executive authority, erstwhile it incorporates the law-making process into the catalogue of its powers, and the resulting legislation, alternatively of the nature of general standards, takes the form of detailed resolutions and government regulations.
Another form of deformity of democracy that Hayek warns against is abuse resulting from the misunderstanding of the law of the parliamentary majority. Namely, a government appointed by a majority should not be discriminated against by minorities, so the distortion of democracy occurs erstwhile a government elected by a parliamentary majority begins to overlook the needs of minorities. Pointing to the sources of this deformation, Hayek writes in the “Constitution of Freedom” that it stems from the misconception of typical governments as governments based solely on the will of the majority. In this sense, the state power exercised on behalf of the majority is unlimited.
The fresh deformity of democracy, which Hayek points out, refers to the problem of politicising the law in the process of its creation for the accomplishment of various particular, usually organization objectives. Hayek believes that organization government leads to the demolition of democratic society, as sanctioning the informal influences of various groups has nothing to do with actual democracy. Interest groups lead to a government prone to blackmail and corruption and to the adoption of laws incompatible with the public interest. The difficulty of implementing the separation of powers becomes a origin of tension and leads to abuse and mixing of lawmaking tasks, while at the same time satisfying the expectations of the electorate and the various influence groups. The legislative process can so be treated instrumentally. In order to safe support in the electoral process, politicians prosecute peculiar interests, regardless of the general welfare. The consequence of this is the distortion of the fundamental tasks of the State, as the state apparatus is active in the interests of influence groups. Hayek stresses the destructive impact of the organization strategy on the functioning of the parliament, indicating that the legislative body is deformed by the requirements of the current policy, namely the fight against various interests.
If not democracy, then what?
By making affirmative criticism of democracy, Hayek proposes a demoarchy – a form from the borderline of democracy and aristocracy, based on expert governments. As a basic need, it indicates the separation of government and implementing acts on current affairs. According to this concept, there should be 2 chambers, expert and legislative. The first chamber, of an expert nature, would be aristocratic. It would be characteristic of natural census: at least 45 years old, education price, merit. Members were to be selected from a narrow group – to form an elite. The second chamber was to be based on democratic selection by all eligible citizens. Its competence included the state's current activities, the creation of additional rules and regulations. In general, according to Hayek, the legislative body should be afraid with the provision of general rights, and the government should be limited to resolving circumstantial problems.
Interestingly, Hayek offers rather broad functions for a liberal government. In addition to the protection of freedom, they include the provision of those goods and rules which the marketplace cannot provide; infrastructure, the creation of standards certifying goods, the financing of culture, education, research. This is so not a typical "minimum state" characteristic of liberal thought.
What is the main intent of the state's existence according to F. A. von Hayek? It should make and enforce legal standards that meet the conditions of generality, universality and abstractity. He stresses that human action will be free erstwhile the state creates a framework of rights for them. The equality of all before the law is very important. In the Constitution of Freedom, it indicates: The intent of the law should be the good of the people, that the general principles should be so designed to service him, not that any formulation of a circumstantial social intent may justify a breach of these principles, a circumstantial purpose, a concrete consequence that is to be achieved, can never be a law. In the same work, it sets out the principles that are essential to preserve the regulation of law: the law must be general, abstract and known and certain. This makes decisions of the court simple to foretell and does not make controversy. Laws must be applied equally to all – there is no exception. This is simply a return to the Roman regulation dura lex sed lex – he wrote. The laws cannot service the current state policy, they must be stable. Law should make a strategy of regulation of principle, not objectives. The state should not set itself goals specified as expanding prosperity or the principles of social justice, due to the fact that it then serves not the general public, but groups of pressure.
A. von Hayek is simply a strong supporter of the national state. According to him, the power should be as decentralised as possible, divided between the central and the state in order to prevent the government from bullying citizens.
Hayek refers widely to the issue of coercion in the context of state power. He claims that due to human imperfection, coercion in social life will never be eliminated. It can only be reduced and that is the task of the state. In general, a free society requires not only that the State has a monopoly of coercion, but besides that it is its only monopoly, and that, in all another respects, it should act on the same principles as everyone else emphasizes in the Constitution of Freedom. Even erstwhile coercion is inevitable, it is devoid of its most harmful effects, due to the fact that it concerns certain and predictable responsibilities, i.e. it is at least independent of the arbitrary will of another man. Even acts of coercion of a given country become data on which an entity can base its plans – adds.
However, Hayek emphasises the negative assessment of the coercion which is not implemented in the state in the manner set out above. This view was expressed in the Constitution of Freedom: Force is evil precisely due to the fact that it consequently excludes an individual as a reasoning and evaluator, and makes it simply a tool for achieving the goal of another. However, where the voluntary actions of adults cannot contact anyone another than themselves, a specified dislike of what others do, or even the cognition that they harm themselves with their actions, does not justify utilizing coercion. At the same time, he pointed out that the level of coercion can only be minimal in a society where conventions and traditions make human behaviour mostly predictable.
Too liberal or besides free?
Keynesism and libertarianism – representatives of these currents share everything but 1 – criticism of Hayek's imagination of the state.
What did the libertarians at the Austrian School of Economics accuse Hayek of? First of all, there are no consequences and no radicalism. Murray Newton Rothbard, an American economist, historian and political theorist criticises the Hayek definition of coercion – he thinks it is besides narrow and besides broad. Another affects us or our environment or the situation that the best solution for us is to adapt to its plans and objectives alternatively than our own. – According to Rothbard, there are cases of voluntary interactions which, under Hayek's definition, will should be treated as forced. On the another hand, there is simply a class of forced interactions which, according to this definition, will not be considered as such. Additionally, Rothbard asserts that Hayek does not separate on the level of ethical attack from defense. It is not known what it means that coercion is more or less, after all, there is no nonsubjective measure. Moreover, it is not at all that coercion cannot be avoided – Rothbard points out that it can be done at the level of government – the law launches the apparatus of coercion erstwhile individual commits the blame.
Another typical of the Austrian School of Economics, Hans-Herman Hoppe, claimed that Hayek's explanation cannot be systematically distinguished from social democracy. According to Hoppe, this is due to the incorrect concept of Hayek's freedom, but it besides points to deeper causes, or intellectual errors specified as subjectiveism, relativism, and anti-rationalism. Hayek's capture is very subjective, as the central categories of cognition treats knowledge, plans, strategies, categories of human consciousness. The libertarian explanation of freedom is based on an absolute, nonsubjective right of property. Hayek does not specify freedom in subjective terms, does not answer the question, “What am I allowed to do?” so his explanation is not suitable for a signpost of action and does not give clear indications erstwhile there is simply a real compulsion. Hoppe besides draws attention to the misconception of the government's claim to supply goods – the deficiency of resources has always functioned, it is simply a average phenomenon. These observations imply criticism of the safeguard state – according to Hoppe, the monopoly on force results in what all monopoly, or decline in quality and price increases.
The decisive criticism of Hayek's imagination of the state came naturally from representatives of ideas against libertarians. John Maynard Keynes, the creator of state interventionism explanation in the field of economics and state finances, critic and rival F. A. von Hayek embodies the opposing current of economical thought. The concepts of both economists gained and lost the support of politicians, while influencing the lives of citizens of many countries. What allegations did Keynes make about the Hayek concept? According to Hayek, the recovery of the economy requires cutting investments and expanding consumer savings, while Keynes says that, on the contrary, the simplification in the tendency to save and increase consumption to sustain the expected profits of companies. Hayek demanded “a belt clamp”, Keynes – an increase in spending. Keynes claimed that the government could not only but besides should interfere with the economy, and the government's planning and control supply support for it. Hayek offered politicians the anticipation of a free-market policy with the simultaneous depletion of their power. He felt that politicians should not even effort to control individual aspects of the lives of individuals due to the fact that it is impossible to know the complex human nature. specified efforts, characteristic of socialists, were described as “the pride of reason”. These assumptions Keynes criticized, pointing to the anticipation of politicians controlling events. Hayek's ideology far from populism, for many politicians was unacceptable due to the proposed regulation of power. J. M. Keynes and A. F. von Hayek have always stood on other sides of the barricade on the issue of government mixing into the economy. For 20 years they held a dispute in the form of letters, technological publications, and fierce discussions.
Without a doubt, F. A von Hayek helped change the course of past by contributing to a shift from state control towards the free market. Today, it is impossible to underestimate Hayek's contribution to the delegitization of socialism and interventionism. His views inspired many contemporary politicians. He criticized supporters of social engineering who wanted to control society with extended powers of power. Hayek, on the 1 hand, presented a broad criticism of socialist concepts and detailed solutions concerning lawmaking, social justice and the distortion of democracy, on the another hand, he proposed his own, creating the best possible opportunities for unfettered improvement and cultivating individual freedom. F. And von Hayek belongs to those liberal thinkers of the 20th century who influenced the public's belief in the thought of freedom, individualism and spontaneous economical order. F. A. von Hyek, who stands for freedom and the regulation of law, warns against the disastrous effects of socialist ideology. For a reason, he quoted Friedrich Hoelderin’s words in “The Way to Enslave”: The state always became hell on earth due to the fact that man tried to make it his heaven.
Natalia Wislińska
The author is simply a PhD student of Political Sciences, a postgraduate of interior Security, a law student at UMCS in Lublin, co-author of the task “The Voice of a Hero” – a series of interviews with people who deserve Poland. The text was originally published on the wmeritum.pl portal.
