In Today’s Wall Street Journal’s “Notable and Quotable” F. A. Hayek reminds us of how important it is that an ethic of liberty guide all political decisions if freedom is to be maintained. The most complete and comprehensive discussion of such an ethic is by Murray Rothbard in his The Ethics of Liberty.
“Friedrich Hayek on what should be the overriding principle governing legislation.
Friedrich Hayek in “The Constitution of Liberty,” 1960:
‘Not only is liberty a system under which all government action is guided by principles, but it is an ideal that will not be preserved unless it is itself accepted as an overriding principle governing all particular acts of legislation.
Where no such fundamental rule is stubbornly adhered to as an ultimate ideal about which there must be no compromise for the sake of material advantages—as an ideal which, even though it may have to be temporarily infringed during a passing emergency, must form the basis of all permanent arrangements—freedom is almost certain to be destroyed by piecemeal encroachments. For in each particular instance it will be possible to promise concrete and tangible advantages as the result of a curtailment of freedom, while the benefits sacrificed will in their nature always be unknown and uncertain.
If freedom were not treated as the supreme principle [emphasis mine], the fact that the promises which a free society has to offer can always be only chances and not certainties, only opportunities and not definite gifts to particular individuals, would inevitably prove a fatal weakness and lead to its slow erosion.’”
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/21070/the-overiding-importance-of-an-ethic-of-liberty/
The overiding importance of an ethic of liberty
Previous post: Walk Away 90210
Next post: The amazing market
{ 7 comments }
This sentence is ambiguous.
“F. A. Hayek reminds us of how important it is that an ethic of liberty guide all political decisions if freedom is to be maintained.”
Was Hayek talking about politicians or the public there?
From the politicians point of view, wouldn’t liberty get in the way of the looting?
From the public’s point of view, wouldn’t the politicians get in the way of their liberty?
What is implied but not appreciated is that the ethic of liberty requires the recognition that economics and ethics are inseparable. There used to be a reason for their separation, the science of ethics and the science of economics had not broken through that barrier. But now that barrier has been pushed further down the road and the inseparability is included in both of these scientific disciplines.
Liberty is what we all want but not know what it is.
Ask your Libertarian friends how their life would change if they had more liberty. Most responses involve less taxes or more pot.
“…even though it may have to be temporarily infringed during a passing emergency”
That kind of compromise is dangerous, especially in the face of “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
There is never an emergency serious enough to justify the state’s infringing upon liberty. The emergency passes, but the infringements do not.
I agree. Such compromises guarantee a government that manufactures “emergencies” in perpetuity.
Ironically, Rothbard did not think much of Hayek’s philosophy – see Murray’s criticism of him in that very book (Ethics of Liberty).
Comments on this entry are closed.