There are few more influential right-wing scholars—and whose work—than the economist Friedrich Hayek less Dunn’s ascendant is consistent with the Trumpian strain.
Born in Austria in 1899, Hayek spent his career developing a broad libertarian social theory. For Hayek, societies emerge from the interplay of countless different systems and logics—creating an order so complex that no single entity, not even a government, can fully understand how it works. He believed that any attempt to transform such a thing by policy would break down part of the system forever, leading to unintended and often disastrous consequences.
This is not a good argument against all Government intervention in markets (may suggest a shallow reading of Hayek). But it is a powerful insight into how societies work, providing a particularly clear explanation for why planned economies failed so badly in Hayek’s lifetime.
This helps us understand why there is a genuine strain of right-wing resistance to Trump’s “tariffs and deportations” economic agenda—one that attentive liberals can learn from.
Hayek’s case against “spontaneous order” and control
For Hayek there were essentially two different types of systems or orders. The first is an organization, meaning a top-down planned effort where one person or entity creates the rules for everyone to follow. The second is a “spontaneous order”, a bottom-up system in which the rules are determined by a large number of micro-interactions over time.
Take, for example, the ecosystems of the American West. No one has set the rules by which bison, wolves, moose, prairie dogs, and the like breed and interact; In fact, no one has dictated that this particular place needs that particular species at all. Instead, a system emerged from thousands of years of interactions between plants and animals, prey and predators. It has predictable rules and results, but no hands on the tiller.
Hayek believed that humanity operates in a similar, but more complex fashion.
Our own social system, according to Hayek, reflects the interaction of hundreds of billions of people and is an impossibly diverse set of institutions, from organized religion to various economic sectors to artist collectives. What we call “society” is the spontaneous order that emerges from the interactions of individuals and organizations and the development of often unwritten rules that govern those interactions.
“The structure of human activity is constantly adapting itself, and works by adapting itself to millions of facts that no one knows in their entirety,” he wrote. Law, Law, and Liberty, Volume 1.
Government, Hayek argued, plays a special role in spontaneous order: it becomes essential to ensure that [social] Rules are obeyed.” States both protect people’s right to participate in their corner of the spontaneous order and, at times, may even direct the adoption of a different (and perhaps better) set of rules.
What the state cannot do well, in Hayek’s view, is to intervene in isolated and specific interactions within spontaneous order.
When governments issue “commands” telling people where and at what prices they can sell their goods, for example, it involves an undertaking that bureaucrats and politicians cannot do adequately and can never have sufficient knowledge of. Most economic regulation, for Hayek, is akin to the mass killing of wolves in the American West—a short-sighted move with Long-term results are unstable. (There have been recent attempts to reintroduce wolves A tremendous success.)
“Spontaneous order arises from each element balancing all the various factors acting upon it and all its various actions in harmony with each other, a balance which would be destroyed if some actions were determined by other agencies based on different knowledge and different in the service of ends,” Hayek wrote.
Hayek vs. Trump
It’s all too easy to take this pro-market line of thinking too far.
We know that some elements of the economy, such as the money supply, can in fact be effectively managed by government. Hayek’s skepticism towards government can turn into paranoia, as in his argument The Road to Serfdom Claims that social democracy will always bleed into authoritarianism. In fact, he went so far as to support Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile Its free-market policies The price was the loss of political freedom.
Yet Hayek’s argument is essential to understanding why some government projects such as the Soviet-style command economy fail so spectacularly. When an economic policy aims at fundamental transformation, in which people are entrusted with managing a large part of ordinary economic activity, the potential for the state to exceed the limits of its knowledge is obvious.
Hayek did not believe this was a problem only for socialists. in Constitution of IndependenceHayek argued that conservatives’ emphasis on preserving tradition and race tended to lead to dangerous forms of state control over their societies.
“It is this nationalist bias that often provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism: thinking in terms of ‘our’ industries or resources is a small step away from demanding that such resources be managed in the national interest,” he wrote.
So while undoubtedly a man of the right, Hayek rejected the label “conservative” for his politics (he preferred “liberal” on the grounds that “libertarian” was too cliche). Conservatives, he argued, were bigoted and nationalist—useful allies against the left, but sufficiently skeptical of liberties that they posed their own collectivist dangers.
Had Hayek lived, he would have seen the truth of his concerns in the person of Donald Trump. The former president’s two most consistent policy proposals — deporting millions of immigrants and imposing a 10-percent tariff on all foreign goods — are far more aggressive attempts to reshape America’s self-serving order than any of the tax-and-spend proposals proposed by the Harris campaign. . Each, in its own way, amounts to a fundamental overhaul of how the American state and economy work.
Indeed, one of Trump’s most effective critics has a reason trade And immigration Principles work for the libertarian Cato Institute. Hayek’s heirs, at least those who take his ideas seriously, understand that Trump represents something repugnant to their heritage.
This story is from the On the Right newsletter. New versions drop every Wednesday. Sign up here.
