Friedrich Hayek on Why He Wasn’t a Conservative
Friedrich Hayek is one of the most important economists in history. Nowadays, he is generally lionized by “free market conservatives” – and roundly dismissed by voters more amenable to public goods. He’s often setup by explainer shows as the counterpoint to John Maynard Keynes. He is unfortunately quoted out of context by conservative politicians before they propose some harebrained, simplistic scheme.
Here’s a key excerpt from the work –
Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule – not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.
When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal tome more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.
The entire essay “Why I Am Not A Conservative” is a brilliant work. For myself, despite growing up in the deep, deep conservative Republican land, it’s the reason why I’ve never voted for a Republican candidate in my life (I cast my first ballot in the 2004 election, though have voted 3rd party on occasion).
The US does have an odd and frustrating system where the parties form a coalition before elections and then go to the voters (instead of vice versa in proportional voting systems). But, I wish the work could be read by more independent-minded, thoughtful voters before casting for a Republican candidate in addition to more Democrats who might want to consider, you know, attracting voters to win elections.
Also, I don’t love writing according to the news cycle. But, this post has been a draft for a long time…and right now feels like a timely moment for everyone to use our Right to Free Speech – regardless of your opinion or political leanings. I’ve uploaded the PDF and my site is on a global CDN – so hopefully it’ll be available as long as I’m alive to pay my the hosting bills.
