Few right-wing scholars have been as influential as the economist Friedrich Hayek, and few have done more research than the economist Friedrich Hayek. few Compatible with the dominant Trump faction on the right.
Born in Austria in 1899, Hayek spent his career developing a broad range of liberal social theory. According to Hayek, society emerges from the interaction of countless different systems and logics, forming an order so complex that a single organization, even a government, cannot understand how it functions. cannot be fully understood. He believed that attempts to change such things through policy always destroy parts of the system, leading to unintended and often disastrous consequences.
this is not a good rebuttal all Government intervention in the market (as a shallow reading of Hayek might suggest). But it is a powerful insight into how society works, and one that provides a particularly clear explanation of why planned economies were so unsuccessful during Hayek's lifetime.
It also helps us understand why there is serious right-wing resistance to President Trump's “tariffs and deportation” economic policies. That's something an attentive liberal could learn from.
Hayek's challenge to “spontaneous orders'' and regulations
For Hayek, there were basically two different types of systems or orders. The first is organization. This refers to a top-down, planned effort in which one person or group sets the rules for everyone to follow. The second is “spontaneous order.'' It is a bottom-up system where rules are determined over time by a vast number of micro-interactions.
For example, consider the ecosystem of the American West. No one decides the rules by which bison, wolves, elk, prairie dogs, and more breed and interact. In fact, no one dictated that we needed those particular species in this particular location. Instead, systems arose from thousands of years of interactions between plants and animals, prey and predators. There are predictable rules and outcomes, but no steering wheel.
Hayek believed that humans operate in a similar but more complex way.
According to Hayek, our own social order has evolved over centuries between hundreds of millions of different people and incredibly diverse institutions, from organized religions to different economic sectors to artistic collectives. It reflects the interaction that goes on. What we call “society” is a spontaneous order that emerges as individuals and organizations interact and develop tacit rules that govern those interactions.
“The structure of human activity functions by constantly adapting and adapting to millions of facts whose totality is unknown to anyone,” he writes. Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Volume 1.
Hayek argued that government plays a special role in spontaneous order. [social] Rules will be followed. ” The state protects people's right to participate as part of a voluntary order, and can sometimes even guide the order to adopt a different (and perhaps better) set of rules.
What the state cannot do well, in Hayek's eyes, is interfere with discrete and specific interactions within the spontaneous order.
For example, when a government issues “orders” to its citizens telling people where goods can be sold and at what price, the government does not and will never have sufficient knowledge for bureaucrats and politicians to properly implement them. You will be engaged in business. For Hayek, most economic regulation is akin to the genocide of wolves in the American West, short-sighted and destabilizing in the long run. (Recent efforts to reintroduce wolves have been surprisingly successful.)
“Spontaneous order results from each element maintaining a balance of the various elements acting on it and coordinating all of its various actions with each other. That balance arises when some of the actions are based on different knowledge or information. and be destroyed as determined by different agencies “for various purposes,'' Hayek wrote.
It's easy to take this pro-market thinking too far.
We know that certain elements of the economy, such as the money supply, can indeed be effectively controlled by governments. Hayek's skepticism of government, like his arguments, can extend to paranoia. road to serfdom He argued that social democracy would inevitably be tinged with authoritarianism. In fact, he even supported Augusto Pinochet's Chilean dictatorship, arguing that Chile's free market policies were worth the loss of political freedom.
But Hayek's argument is essential to understanding why some government projects, such as Soviet-style command economies, tend to fail so spectacularly. It is clear that if economic policy aims at a fundamental transformation in which humans become responsible for managing a wide range of normal economic activities, then the state may exceed the limits of knowledge.
Hayek did not think that this was a problem only for socialists. in constitution of freedomHayek argued that conservatives' emphasis on preserving tradition and the nation tilted them toward dangerous forms of state control over society.
“It is this nationalist bias that is often the bridge from conservatism to collectivism. Thinking in terms of 'our' industries and resources requires directing these national assets to the national interest. We are one step away from doing so,” he wrote.
As a result, Hayek refused to label his politics as “conservative” even though he was definitely on the right (he preferred the term “liberal” because the term “libertarian” was too clumsy). preferred). He says conservatives are dogmatic and nationalistic, making them useful allies on the left, but sufficiently skeptical of freedom that they pose their own collectivist dangers. insisted.
If Hayek were still alive, we would see his concerns corrected by the person of Donald Trump. The former president's two most consistent policy proposals — deporting millions of immigrants and imposing a 10% tariff on all foreign goods — are different from any tax and spending proposals proposed by the Harris campaign. It is a much more proactive effort to reshape America's spontaneous order than the proposal. . Each, in its own way, represents a fundamental overhaul of the way America runs its nation and economy.
In fact, there's a reason why some of the most effective critics of President Trump's trade and immigration policies work at the libertarian Cato Institute. Hayek's successors, at least those who take his ideas seriously, understand that Trump is anathema to their tradition.
This article has been adapted from the On the Light newsletter. New editions are released every Wednesday. Sign up here.
