info@hayekianer.ch
  • Home
  • Über uns
  • Publikationen und Artikel
  • Hayek Feder
  • Veranstaltungen
  • Mitglied werden
  • Bibliothek
  • Kontakt

Hayek’s spontaneous order and the emergence of institutions

Gepostet am vor 8 Jahren
Keine Kommentare

Friedrich August von Hayek

Though freedom is not a state of nature but an artifact of civilization, it did not arise from design. The institutions of freedom, like everything freedom has created, were not established because people foresaw the benefits they would bring. But, once its advantages were recognized, men began to perfect and extend the rein of freedom and, for that purpose, to inquire how a free society worked. This development of a theory of liberty took place mainly in the eighteenth century. It began in two countries, England and France. The first of these knew liberty; the second did not. As a result, we have had to the present day two different traditions in the theory of liberty: one empirical and unsystematic, the other speculative and rationalistic—the first based on an interpretation of traditions and institutions which had spontaneously grown up and were but imperfectly understood, the second aiming at the construction of a utopia, which has often been tried but never successfully. Nevertheless, it has been the rationalist, plausible, and apparently logical argument of the French tradition, with its flattering assumptions about the unlimited powers of human reason, that has progressively gained influence, while the less articulate and less explicit tradition of English freedom has been on the decline.

…

Though these two groups are now commonly lumped together as the ancestors of modern liberalism, there is hardly a greater contrast imaginable than that between their respective conceptions of the evolution and functioning of a social order and the role played in it by liberty. The difference is directly traceable to the predominance of an essentially empiricist view of the world in England and a rationalist approach in France. The main contrast in the practical conclusions to which these approaches led has recently been well put, as follows: “One finds the essence of freedom in spontaneity and the absence of coercion, the other believes it to be realized only in the pursuit and attainment of an absolute collective purpose”; and “one stands for organic, slow, half-conscious growth, the other for doctrinaire deliberateness; one for trial and error procedure, the other for an enforced solely valid pattern.”

…

From these [British] conceptions gradually grew a body of social theory that showed how, in the  relations among men, complex  and  orderly and, in a very definite sense, purposive institutions  might grow up which owed little to design, which were not invented but arose from the separate  actions  of many men who did not know what they were doing. This demonstration that something greater than man’s individual mind may grow from men’s fumbling efforts represented in some ways an even greater challenge to all design theories than even the later theory of biological evolution.

…

It is unfortunate that at a later date the social sciences, instead of building on these beginnings in their own field, reimported some of these ideas from biology and with them brought in such conceptions as “natural selection,” “struggle for existence,” and “survival of the fittest,” which are not appropriate in their field; for in social evolution, the decisive factor is not the selection of the physical and inheritable properties of the individuals but the selection by imitation of successful institutions and habits.

…

To the empiricist evolutionary tradition, on the other hand, the value of freedom consists mainly in the opportunity it provides for the growth of the undesigned, and the beneficial functioning of a free society rests largely on the existence of such freely grown institutions.

…

But we have yet to look at those rules of conduct which have grown as part of it, which are both a product and a condition of freedom. Of these conventions and customs of human intercourse, the moral rules are the most important but by no means the only significant ones.

…

It is this flexibility of voluntary rules which in the field of morals makes gradual evolution and spontaneous growth possible, which allows further experience to lead to modifications and improvements. Such an evolution is possible only with rules which are neither coercive nor deliberately imposed—rules which, though observing them is regarded as merit and though they will

be observed by the majority, can be broken by individuals who feel that they have strong enough reasons to brave the censure of their fellows. Unlike any deliberately imposed coercive rules, which can be changed only discontinuously and for all at the same time, rules of this kind allow for gradual and experimental change. The existence of individuals and groups simultaneously observing partially different rules provides the opportunity for the selection of the more effective ones.

Extract from Hayek’s most important work “The Constitution of Liberty”, Chicago 1960/2011, pp. 107-124

Jetzt teilen

  • teilen 
  • teilen 
  • teilen 
  • teilen 
  • teilen 
  • E-Mail 
Vorheriger Beitrag
Das Recht im Land der Anarchie
Nächster Beitrag
Wider die Staatsvergottung

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar Antworten abbrechen

Ihre E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

Bitte füllen Sie dieses Feld aus.
Bitte füllen Sie dieses Feld aus.
Bitte geben Sie eine gültige E-Mail-Adresse ein.
Sie müssen den Bedingungen zustimmen, um fortzufahren.

Kategorien

Kategorien

  • Freihandel (5)
  • Geld (25)
  • Gesellschaft (40)
  • Gold (7)
  • Ideenwettbewerb (13)
  • Investieren (5)
  • Kapitalismus (4)
  • Liberalismus (15)
  • Libertarismus (12)
  • Marktwirtschaft (7)
  • Migrationspolitik (7)
  • Recht, Gesetz und Freiheit (3)
  • Sozialstaat (16)

Neueste Beiträge

Es lebe der Unterschied!

Veranstaltungsbericht „Vom Marxismus zum Kulturmarxismus“ mit Prof. Gerd Habermann, 22.…
Mehr lesen

Gedanken zum Austritt des Vereinigten Königreichs aus der Europäischen Union

Letizia Angstmann, Juristin, lebt in England Am kommenden 29. März…
Mehr lesen

Das Janusgesicht der europäischen Integration

Pascal Salin, emeritierter Professor für Ökonomie an der Universität Paris-Dauphine…
Mehr lesen

Veranstaltungen

Keine Veranstaltung gefunden!

Hayek Club Zürich

Der Hayek Club Zürich ist der erste Hayek-Club der Schweiz. Wir orientieren uns an den Werten einer liberalen Gesellschaft nach Friedrich August von Hayek.

Facebook
X

Neueste Beiträge

  • Es lebe der Unterschied! 26.02.2019
  • Gedanken zum Austritt des Vereinigten Königreichs aus der Europäischen Union 12.01.2019
  • Das Janusgesicht der europäischen Integration 14.03.2018
  • Vom Ende der Gemeindefreiheit – Adolf Gassers Werk im Lichte der europäischen Integrationsbewegung 14.03.2018

Kontakt

info@hayekianer.ch
Hayek Club Zürich, 8000 Zürich
  • Über uns
  • Statuten
  • Links
  • Impressum
  • Datenschutz

© 2023 Hayek Club Zürich