...what is integrally assumed in Hayek's and Rand's beliefs: namely, that economic liberty and political liberty are in fact or are somehow to be considered as separate and distinct sorts of things.... ...free markets come second, not first, in precedence to social orders--which are at the same time political orders as well. From that, it appears that there is no such thing as a free market in any sense unless there is some sort of just political order to create and protect the supposed free market.
...free markets come second, not first, in precedence to social orders--which are at the same time political orders as well. From that, it appears that there is no such thing as a free market in any sense unless there is some sort of just political order to create and protect the supposed free market.
My ellipsis above swallows an extended discussion, but I'd like to note that Hayek devoted much of his intellectual labor precisely to the understanding of the relationships among social orders, law, political orders, and economics. He did not regard markets as a primary domain. You do not say otherwise, but could perhaps be read as suggesting it.
For an appreciation of the depth of his inquiry, I recommend The Constitution of Liberty (the title of which illustrates Hayek's talent for overlaying clear insights with an opaque surface -- the book isn't about constitutions in the U.S. sense, but about fundamental structures in a broad sense). It is about societies, not markets.
Hayek's insights could easily be turned against the shallow free-market drivel common today. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
Your critical comment is, I'm afraid, correct and justified--to the point that much later, as I was reading some references to Hayek, I even thought, before I'd read your reply, "that was an unfair impression I left." And it reflects what I'm afraid are my own unfair impressions of Hayek's views on economic liberty as having primacy over other liberties. Maybe that impression comes from what I've read and heard from those--mainly libertarians-- who are such fans of Hayek and who I fault for seeing only individual (read economic) liberties as important and, moreover, as the basis for all other liberties.
I'm pleased to be corrected in that false impression; and I apologize for having left it in my post. I think Hayek's title, if it's he who chose it, is perfectly apt for its purpose. I haven't read The Constitution of Liberty but thanks to your reply, it's now on my list. "In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge
