Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Interviewed by Mateusz Machaj, English version of Socjaldemokratyczny Hayek, in Najwyzszy czas, September 2004; also Economics, Philosophy, and Politics (interviewed by Emrah Akkurt, Turkey-Association for Liberal Thinking), Mises.org, February 26, 2004. See also comments to this post, noting: In the PFS “about” page, Hoppe is quoting Mises, not Hayek (the piece quoted is here, and makes it clear Mises disagreed with Hayek). Hoppe is a Misesian. Hayek was good on many issues, especially for his time, and Hoppe thus quotes him favorably on one point, but of course nowhere implies Hayek was completely on board with an agenda as radical even as Mises’s was.
See also:
- “The Hayek Myth” (PFS 2012)
- Hoppe, F.A. Hayek on Government and Social Evolution: A Critique (Vol. 7 Num. 1) (also in The Great Fiction)
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Interviewed by Mateusz Machaj
- This lecture is from the 2012 meeting of the Property and Freedom Society: Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), The Hayek Myth. PFS 2012 Playlist. Loosely based (?) on F.A. Hayek on Government and Social Evolution: A Critique (Vol. 7 Num. 1) (also in The Great Fiction)
- Walter Block, “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom”.
- See also Hoppe’s views critical of Hayek’s “knowledge” paradigm in Kinsella, Knowledge vs. Calculation.
Additional:
From On the Non Liquet in Libertarian Theory and Armchair Theorizing:
Regarding Hayek’s view that laws should be general, predictable, and known in advance, see my chapter “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” [in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023)] Part III.B.1, n.34:
The “other” fundamental requisite of law is that law be based on rules of general application, a requisite that special statutes tend to undermine. I am grateful to Leonard Liggio for calling Sartori’s works to my attention. But having statutory, artificial law be predictable, known ahead of time, and of “general applicability” is not sufficient for law to be just. If this is your only criteria, you can support all manner of statist laws, as Hayek does. See Walter E. Block, “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom,” J. Libertarian Stud. 12, no. 2 (Fall 1996), pp. 327–50.
From Kinsella, Review of Anthony de Jasay, Against Politics: On Government, Anarchy, and Order, in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023):
In the course of this essay, de Jasay also deflates the myth that Popper was a liberal.[24] Also of interest is de Jasay’s critical treatment of other prominent liberal economists and political theorists, notably James Buchanan, F.A. Hayek, and Robert Nozick. In “Hayek: Some Missing Pieces,”[25] for example, de Jasay argues that Hayek “has no complete theory of the social order to back up his liberal recommendations.”[26] In advocating that government should go beyond the maintenance of law and order to provide amorphous and endless “highly desirable” public goods, Hayek ends up supporting virtually unlimited government. De Jasay will have none of this:
A theory of social order is incomplete if it makes no serious attempt at assessing the long-term forces that make the public sector grow or shrink. This can hardly be done without relying on a defensible theory of public goods. Hayek feels no necessity for one. Strangely, the question seems to have held no interest for him.[27]
In other words, Hayek has not done his homework and his half-baked political theory endangers the very freedom that he is viewed as upholding. (The critiques of Nozick and Buchanan are discussed below in the discussion of Part 2.)
[24] Against Politics, p. 114.
[25] Ibid., chap. 6.
[26] Ibid., p. 120.
[27] Ibid., p. 125. See also Walter Block, “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom,” J. Libertarian Stud. 12, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 327–50.
