Warning: this is going to be a post about a fundamentally huge topic where I can’t possibly elaborate my ideas in a coherent and organized structure. It will likely be a rambling long post as I struggle to capture the main takeaways of my reading exercise.
Since last year, I’ve been spending bits and pieces of my time reading Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty. This is purely a leisurely interest on my part – I didn’t study political philosophy in college, and have only had brief encounters with the topic, in a hopelessly random fashion.
In college, I had read The Road to Serfdom, in Chinese, partly because I was intrigued by its reputation to have disproved the feasibility (and desirability) of socialism from an (pure) economics perspective. The central premise of that book, if I may summarize as such, is that without a free market, society loses the most important input – price – to allocate capital efficiently to generate social progress. Of course, the arguments in that book go beyond this one single point (without economic freedom there can be no liberty, etc.).
In The Constitution of Liberty, Hayek ambitiously attempts to summarize his whole thinking in one book. The school of thought is now commonly termed Neoliberalism, but at the time of his writing, Hayek struggled to find the right phrase to attach himself to – he felt that the meaning of liberalism has been twisted beyond redemption, and he was inclined to use Whiggism, or Libertarianism.
While this obsession with words may seem trivial, it actually highlights my first takeaway. Hayek painstakingly spends the length of the whole Part I (the book is in three parts) to delve into the definitions of basic concepts, such as liberty, coercion, and the rule of law. In Hayek’s view, the concept of “liberty” has been so broadened over time, that the word itself is meaningless – and to discuss what being a “liberal” encompasses, he has to restate what liberty is. Indeed, many times parties engaged in animated debate over hot topics hardly ever realize that they are using the same phrase to mean radically different things – and if we are to ever achieve clarity in thought, we must get the basics right first.
Of course, the book is not a mere discussion of linguistics and the origin of words. The purpose of Hayek’s review of history is to show how these fundamental concepts came into being, and also present his philosophical view that the systems (democracy, etc.) which society operate on are not created, but summarized or discovered. He opposes the French Rationalist tradition where people believe they can create ideal systems through rational thought (such as the failed socialism movement, in its 19th century original sense) – Hayek views such tendencies with high suspicion, as he believes that they are prone to fall to the shortcomings of man and destroy the most important values (such as liberty) which history has given us. (I feel my description here omits some important points… though I can’t really recall them and can only humbly suggest reading the book if you’re interested in this discussion.)
The most central topic of the book is what is the Rule of Law which will guarantee liberty, and prevent individuals from the “arbitrary coercion” which is the biggest danger to liberty. Hayek lists a few key principles and characteristics of a true Law, perhaps the most important of which (or the one which we have discarded the most) being that laws should not be arbitrary. What this means is that legislators should not be allowed to pass whatever laws they wish (even if they hold majority support of the people) – these laws must conform with a higher set of basic law (the Constitution) which cannot be easily modified. Otherwise this would simply be despotism of the majority, leading to the arbitrary coercion of minorities.
In Part I & II, Hayek elaborates these principles and their historical context, as well as more recent developments which he believes have undermined the Rule of Law. In Part III, he shifts to policy debates, using the principles established to scrutinize a range of public policy issues, from the progressive tax system to public housing and education. Hayek expresses his profound concerns on the developments in these areas – for example, according to his interpretation of the Rule of Law, the progressive tax system is fundamentally flawed, in that it is a classic case of arbitrary coercion – the majority deciding what discriminative tax rates a minority (the rich, in this case) should pay. He argues that such populist legislations, which are founded upon a wish for distributive justice and a non-existent (or arbitrary) set of moral standards, are a direct infringement of liberty.
The problem, however, is that in such specific cases people ignore the larger principles at work. Most people support progressive tax rates, as it is “fair”; if the underlying principle that the majority can rule over any minority in any way it wishes is applied in other scenarios, we may well find a bitter taste in our mouths. Hayek’s concern is that such arbitrary legislation (however benign their specific intentions may be) opens the door to such abuse – man is inherently weak and corrupt, and we cannot rely on morals to pass judgment on every arbitrary law.
Hayek notes that from a practical politics perspective, once the floodgates have been opened, it is difficult to go back. Progressive tax systems, where they have been introduced, are here to stay. He is most concerned how in this process, people have forgotten or misinterpreted the fundamental principles of society, posing a major risk going forward.
As a closing note, it is probably not news that Neoliberalism is not so popular these days. The philosophy is understandably suffering a major backlash due to the financial crisis. However, this does not render Hayek’s arguments moot. I think the fundamental principles that he passionately defends are still very relevant, and especially in times of uncertainty, we should be extra wary of being swayed by short-sighted considerations.
Recent Comments