The Constitution of Liberty

by Friedrich A. Hayek

Book Overview

"One of the great political works of our time, . . . the twentieth-century successor to John Stuart Mill's essay, 'On Liberty.'"--Henry Hazlitt, Newsweek

"A reflective, often biting, commentary on the nature of our society and its dominant thought by one who is passionately opposed to the coercion of human beings by the arbitrary will of others, who puts liberty above welfare and is sanguine that greater welfare will thereby ensue."--Sidney...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0226320847
• ISBN13: 9780226320847
• Release Date: October 1978
• Publisher: University of Chicago Press
• Length: 580 Pages
• Weight: 1.83 lbs.
• Dimensions: 2.2" x 6.1" x 9.1"

Customer Reviews

An Exposition of a Theory of Liberty

Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty" is a comprehensive work of political philosophy. It sets forth, defends, and applies an important view of the nature of human liberty, government, and economics that is worth considering, at the least, and that has much to commend it. The book is carefully written and argued with extensive and substantive footnotes and with an "analytical table of contents" that is useful in following the details of the argument. The book is highly erudite. It is also passionately argued. Hayek believed he had an important message to convey.Hayek's states his theory in part I of this book, titled "The Value of Freedom". He seeks to explore the nature of the ideal of freedom (liberty) and to explain why this ideal is valuable and worth pursuing. He finds the nature of freedom in the absence of coercion on a person by another person or group. He argues that in giving the broadest scope of action to each individual, society will benefit in ways that cannot be forseen in advance or planned and each person will be allowed to develop his or her capacities. Hayek summarizes his views near the end of his book (p. 394):" [T]he ultimate aim of freedom is the enlargement of those capacities in which man surpasses his ancestors and to which each generation must endeavor to add its share -- its share in the growth of knowledge and the gradual advance of moral and aesthetic beliefs, where no superior must be allowed to enforce one set of views of what is right or good and where only further experience can decide what should prevail."The book focuses on issues of economic freedom and on the value of the competitive market. Hayek has been influenced by writers such as David Hume, Edmund Burke, and John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty."Part II of the book discusses the role of the State in preserving liberty. It develops a view of law which sees its value in promoting the exercise of individual liberty. The approach is historic. Hayek discusses with great sympathy the development of the common law and of American constitutionalism -- particularly as exemplified by James Madison.In Part III of the book, Hayek applies his ideas about the proper role of government in allowing the exercise of individual liberty to various components of the modern welfare state. Each of the chapters is short and suggestive, rather than comprehensive. Hayek relies on technical economic analysis, and on his understanding of economic theory, as well as on his philosophical commitments, in his discussion. What is striking about Hayek's approach is his openness (sometimes to the point of possible inconsistency with his philosophical arguments). He tries in several of his chapters to show how various aspects of the modern welfare state present threats to liberty in the manner in which he has defined liberty. But he is much more favorably inclined to some aspects of these programs than are some people, and on occasion he waffles. This is the sign of a thoughtful mind, princ

You don't have to be a socialist, even at 20

There is an old saying "If you are not a socialist at 20 you don't have a heart. If you are not a conservative at 40 you don't have a brain". Many people who are young at heart feel that the dreadful alternative to left-liberalism is some kind of cynical, crusty conservatism. Some conservatives reinforce that impression by their rigid and authoritarian views. The best part of this book is the essay at the end titled "Why I am not a conservative" because it dissolves that confusion of thought. Differences within the "non-left" arise especially in two areas: (a) the use of state power to enforce moral principles and (b) the domain of economic policy. In each case the nub of the issue is the extent of state intervention that is appropriate.Some economic liberals may need to be reminded that we do not live by bread and technology alone. Our lives gain meaning and purpose from the myths, moral values and traditions which constitute our non-material heritage. Economic liberals may sometimes appear to have little interest in these spiritual and cultural matters but this is not entirely true and the impression arises because they seldom see these things as part of the agenda of state policy. Here a basic principle is at stake because they do not aim to impose religious or cultural values, instead they wish to sustain "a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends", as Hayek put it.Turning to economic policy we find much conservative apprehension about the push for wholesale deregulation and privatisation. Socialists and many conservatives share a distrust of capitalism due to their failure to appreciate the function of markets and the nature of competition in the marketplace. Over the last century or two, liberals of the classical (non-socialist) variety were forced into ad hoc alliances with conservatives to resist the socialist thrust of the Left. Consequently market liberalism became identified as a reactionary movement and hence the importance of this essay as a corrective to that view. Due to the compromises required for the liberal/conservative alliance in practical politics, the spirit of classical liberalism has languished to the point of death because no major political party in the Western world sustained it in a pure form. The Rule of Law is a principle that conservatives might be expected to hold dear. But Hayek drew attention to "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". Some conservatives tend to share with socialists a willingness to recruit the power of the state to coerce others where the liberal would allow freedom of choice. Conscription for military service is a case in point.In this book Hayek addresses a wide range of social and political issu

Astounding book - well worth reading

I always have to psych myself up to read a book like this that combines philosophy, economics, political theory and economics but once I read it I was sorry I waited so long. More than once I found myself going back to the copyright page to assure myself that the book was written in 1960, not 2000. Within the first few pages he disassociates himself from a pure libertarian position, saying he believes that the govenment has an important place in extending freedom. In an afterword he explains "Why I am not a conservative." For people that like to go beyond categorizing everything into left/right left/right like drill sargents Hayek throws a curve. He strongly believes that the feedback from free markets is the only way that society can adapt to change, which would be something labeled "conservative," but he goes into detail about the ways that governments can help make that happen.I am not surprised that people like Noam Chomsky never seem to mention Hayek. Chomsky carefully selects the facts that help make his case and ignore the ones that are counter to it. Hayek's argments against socialism, or command economies are so good that they pretty much lay the matter to rest. I recently read a speech by Chomsky where he says that because of the unequal distribution of wealth that our "free" markets are just socialism for the rich. Hayek addresses that directly by pointing out that luxuries are luxuries because few of them are produces and only the rich can afford them, but if they are useful or liked people figure out ways to make them less expensively and they become available to everyone. That's just the way it is. How could it be possible that someone could anticipate the breakthroughs humans continue to make? That is one little nugget from this book. I read once that Maggie Thatcher used to give away copies of this book saying "this is what we believe." For that reason alone it would be worth reading because of the influence her reforms had on not only England, but the thinging of the whole developed world.

Homo Sapiens, not homo economus

For an economist, Hayek is a remarkably accessible author, and this is perhaps his most summarily expressive book. It's not only a treasure of Hayek's finest theses, but an excellent overview of human relations, the raison d'etre for a constitutional system, the importance of the rule of law, the radical notion of the separation of powers, and why the free market, while not flawless, remains the best economic system in the allocation, conservation, and efficiency of resources.Hayek is often appropriated by Libertarians as one of them, but I find this claim unpersuasive. Hayek is a Republican in the sense of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Goldwater, and hardly a disciple of Libertarian reductionism to a single rule that is inherently circular and contradictory! I know Libertarianism, and Hayek is no Libertarian.He is, however, an excellent proponent of positive and negative freedoms within a rule-based society, wherein the rule of law is not the Rule by Laws. He finds all forms of anarchy, arbitrariness, and single powers inherently bent against the truest sense of freedom. Freedom itself is not an absolute law, as in the case of being the means rather than the end, but that a world of spontaneous associations under the rule of law and contract is the most liberating of all constitutions.Anyone who enjoys philosophy, politics, economics, sociology, and social psychology will be immediately attracted to this author and this particular book. It is copiously endnoted to substantiate numerous positions taken, but the quotes are so eloquently woven into the prose that they barely stand out as "quotes." As with other books by Hayek, this is very accessible to most college-level educated citizens, and even those who have a fervent interest in the subject matters without the paper to prove it.This profound book is not a startling provocation, but a reasoned exposition. He nutures each subject and sentence with clarity and grace, and yet, despite his obvious erudition, he constantly engages the reader. I found that this book was one of those "life-changing" reads, not because of some extraordinary insight, but because of its ordinary insight. Concerns and matters that occupy our minds are addressed in an impeccible order, without being redundant nor tart nor extra-phenomenal. Rather, it's a kind of "eureka" one experiences when all the right and usual information is presented in the right and usual manner, but takes us one step beyond to see how this view actually comports with our most basic instincts.Finally, the author addresses a very broad audience with a plethora of subjects, each taking on a coherent whole, while artfully crafted within a network that seems obvious upon reading, but less artfully crafted without it. This is a book you'll not only read with zeal, but return to often, no matter what your stripes.

Why liberty and freedom trump socialism and paternalism

By ANDREW CLINE RALEIGH, N.C. € F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of LIberty: University of Chicago Press, $19.95, 568 pages. Freedom is the rallying cry for everyone and every thing these days, from brain-glazed generation X- ers whining about society's social impermissiveness to authoritarian-minded socialists babbling that freedom for the masses can be achieved only by shackling the wealthy. Immediately apparent in most people1s invocations of "freedom," is that the people using that word have only the foggiest notion of what it means, much less why it is important. They confuse liberty with liberties, the provision of benefits with the freedom from coercion, and the rule of law with the rule of the majority. Alas, these democratic difficulties are not new. The authoritarian and socialist trends they caused inspired the Austrian immigrant and economics professor F.A. Hayek to pen what is now regarded as a classic distillation of liberal thought, The Constitution of Liberty, written in the late 1950s and published by Hayek's employer, the University of Chicago, in 1960. By "liberal," of course, I mean classical liberal. The term that the Whigs of 17th and 19th Century England, that Tocqueville and Madison, used to describe themselves. That the once most singular compliment a man could give to another man in describing his political thought has now been appropriated by the rationalist progressives is a misfortune that has plagued true liberals for the past 100 years now. It has plagued liberals not only in the sense that it has denied them the historical and intellectual legitimacy they so rightly deserve, but it has made the defense of those great political ideas and the defeat of their opposite nearly impossible. Hayek knew this was the case, and The Constitution of Liberty was to be the M-1 rifle of the liberal army, a versatile and effective offensive and defensive weapon useful in almost any situation. Though not even many liberal troops may realize it, The Constitution of Liberty has worked as intended. The book is at first striking in its eloquence. Most native English speakers could take lessons in lucid self-expression from this Austrian. After adjusting to the pleasant rhythms of Hayek's thought, the reader's sensibilities are struck a again, this time because of the familiarity of the words. Immediately apparent is that the many phrasings and insights that seem familiar are those that have been echoed for the past few years by the leaders of modern conservatism, or liberalism as Hayek would call it. Hayek's words can be heard emanating from the throats of Newt Gingrich, Margaret Thatcher, and even former Soviet leaders. All over the world, the ideas that are driving young conservative politicians and intellectuals to reform the modern state are ideas taken directly from Hayek. "If old truths are to retain their hold on men1s minds, they must be restated in the language and concepts of successive generat