POLITICAL THEORY - Friedrich Hayek 

EconBuz Economics 😂😂😂😂

I know I am late to the party here, but I would highly appreciate some advice on getting in to LSE, as it is a serious prospect for me at present.

@@commentconnoisseur1001 what A-levels and grades do you have

@@commentconnoisseur1001 You need A*AA if you're in the UK and a very good Personal statement. My PS had lots of smart economic history references that show a great depth of knowledge.

Wrong, I have only met professors at the LSE (with the exception of one individual), which were very proud of the Fabian Society. If they mentioned Hayek, they critizised many of his ideas.

***** It mentioned so much "neoliberalism", an ideology which Hayek rejected: for him, he was a classical liberal in the tradition of Locke, Smith and Hume.

Just fyi there are better justifications for your point. It is a gross simplification that Hitler "came" to power... it is well documented that the WP/Nazis seized it by force and intimidation.

Two of the most horrible humans ever lived. Their theorries have caused disasters in the world.

John Elmot Their theories were never applied

+Guilherme Resende Reagan, Thatcher, Pinochet, the IMF. 🤔basically all neoliberals.

He says essentially that the Central Bank sets interests rates low, inject unnecessary capital which gets confused for real funds that they borrow at then often injected into poor Investments.

Well, of course, before AND after, as it is in a cycle forever

The Boom leads to the Bust

@@MTCoblivsicas12345 which is exactly what's been happening for years nowadays and we have ended up with a corporate bond market of over 60% in the speculative-grade (Baa Moody's and/or BBB S&P) range, a first ever in history (if I'm not mistaken about the latter). For sure the worst ever in the past few decades.

Well that makes more sense

K. It's not free. You don't want it to be free, by the way. It's created in a environment of minimal barriers, so that a huge number of people get to watch a content you choose. It's called advertising space. It works poorly for AAA videogames, for example, but works wonderfully for the kind of content that is offered at youtube. It feels like free and it makes a lot of great content available to millions of people. It' extremely clever.

K. And

@@Renights Dude he was complimenting them. You pay for internet access, but you're not paying directly for the creation of this video through that.

Actually. They get paid. Commies are... something.

it was for a reason, one is a titan, another is just an ant.

And they had to make the ant bigger than the titan.

People who think Marx was something don't understand the time value of money neither people's subjective time preferences.

That's weird, my uni has lots of stuff about Hayek, and during lessons in philosophy and political science his name is brought up multiple times.

Jonnathan Crane can say the same thing about yourself xddd

Exactly, very well pointed!

Laws protecting life, liberty and property.

A lot of videos on this channel take a political stance. It's clear that the school of life is not neutral in it's videos.

@@jasonbourne9819 "protecting life" Does that include healthcare?

@@leeoreilly6797 healthcare is your own responsibility and choice.

someone needs to do a comedy sketch of that night..

There is a 2 round rap battle between them. Funny as he'll. Just search youtube Keynes vs Hayek rap battle

THATS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN AMERICAN LIBERTARIAN. HAYEK DIDNT CARE ABOUT POLITICAL REGIME, HE ONLY CARED ABOUT ECONOMIC REGIME.

@@MrBeen992 Sure his book is titled "The Road to Serfdom" and his other book was called "The constitution of liberty" , but he doesn't care about freedom.

@@happy_thinking he cares...about freedom of markets being a fundamentalist. The freedom of people through markets is a laughable idea. And yes Hayek oposed only the authoritarian left. not in fact every authoriatarian political figure. austrian economic cult is about being a hypocrite

@@Doomlike7 I don't think we have the same view on Hayek. If you read his book The Road to Serfdom you will agree that Hayek was a man who thought and cared deeply about freedom and like other libertarians he thought that political freedom is not possible without economic freedom. I think many people, you included don't see the whole picture when discussing Hayek. Hayek doesn't say that free markets are the cure for everything wrong in the world, what he does say is that free-market capitalism is a prerequisite for freedom. This still means you need to have a reasonable code of conduct or in other words respect for the law and constitution of the country, but this is very hard or impossible in collectivist societies or societies which are capitalist in name only. P.S There are other things worth mentioning, but i will stop here.

@@happy_thinking dictators that hayek didnt oppose whatsoever had a respect for the law and constitution; In defence of dictatorship Woodcut from a Diggers document by William Everard. Wikimedia Commons. Hayek intended his writings to serve as a wake-up call to defenders of liberalism. When such defenders took actions in support of private property, Hayek was unashamed in his support for them. In 1973, General Pinochet launched a coup against the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile, and instituted a dictatorship under which thousands of trade unionists were tortured and murdered. Hayek wrote an infamous letter to The Times defending the coup in the following terms: “I have not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende.” Hayek later described Allende’s administration as the only totalitarian government in Latin America. He couched his defence of Pinochet in a broader context of supporting democracy only insofar as it contributes to the formation and maintenance of a liberal market order: “In Modern times there have of course been many instances of authoritarian governments under which personal liberty was safer than under democracies”. He offers Salazar’s “early government” in Portugal as an example and suggests that there are many democracies in Eastern Europe, Africa, South America and Asia that fail to protect personal liberty. Hayek influenced Margaret Thatcher, and via her, many contemporary conservative party politicians and ideologues including those at the helm of the current conservative party in Britain. In another letter to The Times entitled “the dangers to personal liberty”, he endorsed Thatcher whilst restating his claim that the marketplace is “indispensable for individual freedom” while the ballot box “is not”. To be sure, conservative neoliberals in advanced capitalist countries such as the UK and USA did not use military coups to undermine democracy. They were able to use the parliamentary structures established during the previous century to do so. Hayek sees liberalism and democracy as potentially compatible. But he also sees the former as compatible with authoritarianism. “It is at least possible in principle that a democratic government may be totalitarian and that an authoritarian government may act on liberal principles”. Liberalism does not, therefore, require democracy. For modern liberals the protection of private property and the ability to do with it what one wishes is paramount, while political democracy is desirable but not essential. “The progressive displacement of the rules of conduct of private and criminal law [i.e. negative freedoms] by a concept derived from public law [positive freedoms] is the process by which existing liberal societies are progressively transformed into totalitarian societies.” (Hayek, 1966). For him trade unions represented the greatest threat to the implementation and operation of liberal principles: The “monopolistic practices which threaten the functioning of the market are today much more serious on the side of labour than on the side of enterprise.” Hayek’s opposition to organized labour was expressed through his support for dictatorships. Two traditions of liberalism Hayek begins by contrasting two traditions of liberalism. The first, his favoured one, emerged in the England of the Old Whigs from the mid to late seventeenth century and was fortified by the theories of Edmund Burke, John Locke and Adam Smith. The second was a continental European product elaborated theoretically by writers such as Voltaire and Rousseau. The first tradition of liberalism is “inseparable from the institution of private property”. It has its roots in human nature. It is superior to any form of centralized state planning. It: “[D]erives from the discovery of a self-generating or spontaneous order in social affairs…an order which made it possible to utilize the knowledge and skill of all members of society to a much greater extent than would be possible in any order created by central direction…” (Hayek, 1966). For Hayek, the second, continental tradition of liberalism advanced by writers such as Voltaire and Rousseau points in a fundamentally different direction. There is a straight line from it, to what he labels, the totalitarian politics of the French revolution and modern socialism. Through democratic practice, this tradition attempts to subordinate society to a set of political/normative objectives. Under such conditions, individuals are no longer free to do as they please, and certainly not free to use (or even own) their property in ways they see fit. Hayek argued that this tradition of liberalism “has in effect become democratism rather than liberalism and, demanding unlimited powers of the majority, has become essentially anti-liberal”. Hayek’s concern was to defend the first tradition of liberalism in a global context of increasing state intervention and control over the economy, in which he argued, it was being increasingly undermined. To do so he distinguishes between what are often labelled negative and positive freedoms. The former refers to freedom from constraint, the latter to a process whereby individuals are enabled to fulfil their potential. The roots of Hayek’s liberalism Hayek posits that whilst a liberal market order is paramount, it does not require political democracy: “Liberalism and democracy, although compatible, are not the same. The first is concerned with the extent of governmental power, the second with who holds this power". Hayek identifies the roots of what can be labelled private property-based liberalism as emerging in England following its “glorious” revolution in the mid-seventeenth century. This was a period when the Old Whigs’ political party was politically and ideologically dominant. During the English revolution they had sided with parliament against the King, Charles I, and his feudal supporters. They were opposed to Charles’ attempts to raise taxes arbitrarily. They wanted tax raising powers to be more fully subordinated to parliament, which was itself dominated by the landed gentry. In short, they aimed to limit the state’s ability to interfere in the private affairs, and the property of, the emergent agrarian capitalist class. The Old Whigs sought to justify intellectually the strengthening of private property rights over previous forms of property, including common property. The latter, for example, granted peasants access to public lands, without requiring them to have a defined individual property right over them. Private property in land granted the rapidly expanding landlord class rights to do with the land what they pleased, free from state interference. More significantly, it freed them from any obligations to the peasantry and emerging agricultural labour forces, which had previously worked and depended upon the land for their subsistence. The strengthening of private property in land was achieved through mass enclosures of previously common land, the expulsion of its inhabitants, and its transformation into private property. The Old Whigs fought tooth and nail against political organisations such as the Levellers and agrarian socialists such as the Diggers during the mid-seventeenth Century. These organisations aimed to establish equality before the law, equitable land reform and an expansion of public common land. They also aimed to establish political democracy, to ensure the rule of the majority for the majority. Such a system would guarantee that public land (amongst other things) could not be transformed into private property. For the Old Whigs these visions of popular democracy were antithetical to private property. The Old Whig antipathy to popular democracy on the one hand, and support for private property rights on the other, stands at the core of Hayek’s political philosophy. From this starting point he theoretically de-links liberalism and democracy. This move is designed to a) explain how liberalism can exist without democracy, and b) to limit, significantly, democratic influence over a liberal private property based market order. Hayek’s advocacy for negative freedoms over positive freedoms logically limits democratic content. If governments want to guarantee a liberal market order then they must guarantee negative but not positive freedoms. By default then, they are precluded from implementing widespread social programmes designed, for example, to redistribute wealth, power and property towards the poor. These policies would necessitate imposing obligations upon society in order to pursue a designated outcome. Such actions, according to Hayek, represent the first steps towards totalitarianism. Liberal freedoms would be undermined as society is forced to submit to an 'artificial' (i.e. planned) overarching objective, as opposed to benefitting from the free play of the natural, spontaneous market order. Hayek was "pro-freedom" only when it suited his ultra-conservative narrative and markets fundmendalism. Nothing more nothing less. A hypocrite Austrian like the rest of them. P.S i have read road to serfdom twice. enjoyed it...it has nothing to do about the real meaning of freedom.

yuuki hoffner - thanks for sharing your story.

So interesting

yuuki hoffner It is well-known that he was viewed as an unpleasant person given how he treated his wife.

@Y T Best comment, regardless of political bend. And I have many friends who are lawyers.

@Monster Mash Hayek for cunts.

@@honved1 shut up

Micky Cripplejohn Mises was a great intellectual, much better than Hayek imo.

@@OrthoHoppean will read, thanks for recommendation

Nishanth K Of course. Even if you don't agree with everything he says, to dismiss him as "Hayek for cunts" is completely ignorant and condescending. Mises was truly a brilliant intellectual.

awesome! How is life going? Best to you

Okey ? And what does that have to do with this video part from Hayek beong viennese ?

yes

Yeeees!

He didn't bring much to the table when it comes to philosophy, or did he?

+Favourite Douchebag lol

Andy M lol

I feel another revolution coming on ;)

No, it does not. You didn't explain why, so I won't even bother.

Tell that to Carnegie. University has increased in price because the demand for it is so inelastic and the government continually attempts to subsidize it. A BA is a signalling mechanism, not a form of human capital. Thus, a college degree is suppose to be limited in its ubiquity. If everyone has it, then it becomes meaningless like a high school diploma. As for land, it is not necessary to have land in order to become wealthy. I don't see Steve Jobs tilling any soil. Anyway, land is dirt cheap in the U.S.

If land is cheap in the U.S. then why does anybody rent? Maybe its only cheap to people who are already rich.

David Liddelow I meant to say cheap in rural areas of the country. You can go out there and buy much more land per dollar than any other country in the world. As for cities like New York, yes, its more expensive, but that's basic supply and demand.

Manos Biermann So did Hayek. He still believed into a safety net. And the assumption that believers of free markets simply hate the poor is both myopic and insulting.

Eric B Friedman was not ok with the poor dying in fact his ideologies on competitive capitalism helped keep people from becoming poor... before you make such a bias statement I would suggest knowing what your talking about : )

@@condaquan9459 Yes! Friedman's ideologies are about fostering a strong society where the poor get out of poverty with generations of endeavors. Financially helping the poor is cheap help, which only fulfills the poor's materialism without enhancing their minds. Ironically, the living standards of the poor in America is pretty high.

Will Cheung I agree to the highest extent thank you

@@cch312 Is that why the USA has so many homeless people sleeping on the streets?

Mtn. K. Yes, there was a time long ago when we could discuss things with people whom we disagreed with, without it breaking down into screaming ad hominems at one another. I know, sounds crazy but it’s true.

@@matthewlucas4142 Except Keynes agreed with Hayek on many things.

Yes, they were actually quite cordial and complimentary towards each other.

@@user-ks1hp2pb5g Keynes would have disagreed with neo-keynsians see "Keynes vs the Keynesians" by T.W. Hutchison.

@@C_R_O_M________ Care to give a specific excerpt showing this?

And thats the problem with Hayek and capitalism in general. It gets out of control. Even hayek realized that governments ought to regulate activities of the finance industry. A glaring contradiction within his line of thought.

@@onewhoseeks17 Central banks are not exactly market forces. they do the government's bidding

lmao

You spelt Cancer wrong.

+Eternity Snipin anarchocapitalism :)

i thought it was funny how randomly placed he was

Yes he was a fascist.

@Levis. H I'd say "some aspects of socialism" is actually an understatement. The only difference between Hitler and Mussolini against Stalin is that having lost the war, their scope in the eyes of history limits to defeated warlords, but the truth is, if they had won, roles would be inverted, placing Hitler as a major socialism trademark.

@Levis. H The video puts Mussolini's face there, and is half right. At the beginning of the fascist regime Mussolini indeed did support laissez faire. But of course to hold a strong grip over a nation, especially in times of preparation for a war, he had to change his strategy and go back to his "old" view (socialism) and he ended applying the most important social reforms in Italy of last century, with one of the highest levels of state intrusion in the economy ever seen by Italians. To push for nationalism, he even ended up promoting autarchy, which for many reasons was unachievable in Italy.

@@necroyoli08 I think you're wrong. What you are doing is assuming there really only are capitalism and socialism and no third position. Hitler actually won an intern strive in the Nazis party AGAINST hardcore socialists who wanted to totally expropriate businesses and transform Germany into an socialist farming society (The Strasserist wing as well as the Röhm wing of the SA). Therefore all of the top business owners in Germany actually SUPPORTED Hitler because they feared a takeover of the communists wether they were in the communist party or in the NSDAP itself. IF Hitler would have been a radical socialist he could have never rise to power.

@@Lolux1701 The fact that Hitler didn't support a communist party doesn't make him any less communist. Moreover, in a free enterprise system the market is clear from state intervention, in contrast to communist societies like Nazi Germany according to your own argument. The deal with Hitler wasn't to expropriate buisness because party members owned most of them and could easily control the rest through state force. Same animal, different name.

"Capitalism is evil" they said as they used goods created by labor

"The state is awful!" they said using the internet and other government funded technology like the iPhone...

message sent via satellites invented by Soviet communists...:-)

And perfected by innovative entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley where 17 companies are producing revenue in the billions and working more efficiently than any state-operated initiatives

+Jonah Davis actually perfected in publicly funded universities like M.I.T. :P

I know this comment is from 7 years ago, but c'mon. The only reason why Hayek could destroy my country's economy and social rights system, was because back then Chile was a dictatorship. Famous is the letter Tatcher wrote to Hayek on why she couldn't, even though she super liked, use fully his economics models on the UK; since the UK was a democracy, the model was impossible to implement cause it went against the people's interests.

You have to be crazy to support negative interest rates.

@@099Nitro I mean, yeah, better for the Banks to keep their money in the central bank than investing it, right?

@@geminix365 You mean the money they get for selling things they couldnt sell to a bank that can print money. Real fuckin genius that one mate

@@geminix365 central banks are supposed to supervise the banking system and draw levers like manipulating interest rates and printing currency when there's a need to do so. Negative interest rates came to be (as far as I have gathered) because sovereign debt would become unsustainable if the rates were still "real" (aka positive). This creates a torrent of other distortions like capital allocation to startup companies (most of which end up bankrupt) and zombie companies refinancing their unsustainable business models and corporate debt. That's where we are now.

@@C_R_O_M________ ok, then again, better for banks to keep their billions for themselves, instead of attempting to reactivate the economy You take bankrupcy as the main scenario, while it's a small %

@@JinjaOnHere why?

@@JinjaOnHere They didn't actually invent it by themselves, but what are your criticisms of praxeology?

@@JinjaOnHere why is that a criticism?

@@JinjaOnHere why is rejecting empiricism bad

@@JinjaOnHere if is a "soft" science, by which I think you mean social science, why are you using empirical tools?

Like many You Tube channels, we allow users to add subtitles in the languages they are interested in. Sadly we don't have the budget to translate our films into the world's languages ourselves.

How can we do that? I whink lot of us would love to colaborate.

When you look at the CC/subtitles option one of the options is add subtitles/cc

The School of Life I would settle with English subtitles!

Reaganomics

​@@MetroplexBiasReaganomics is utterly incompatible with Hayek as the government still has control over the currency

Also , suggest viewing The School of Life's video on John Locke .

Unfortunately, economics as taught today is too crude to be useful. It makes big claims, but fails to deliver benefits for all. That should be its job, not just pandering to the Capitalists.

@Y T Well, I wasted 15 seconds reading your comment and another minute writing this. No addition here but unnecessary insults.

@Y T Lol, who hurt you so much? Edit: Btw, reading and citing Rothbard is a waste of time, and the subjective theory of value leads to circular thinking. The Austrian school can offer interesting debates in the context of the twentieth century but not a functional epistemological framework.

@Y T Me refiero a la praxeología como propuesta científica, la cual no es más que basura epistemológica. No acepto lecciones de lectura de un payaso que reparte insultos gratuitos en lugar de aportar algo, aunque sea una crítica, en sus comentarios.

@Y T La epistemología es el estudio del conocimiento, y la praxeología es una metodología pseudocientífica porque no presenta sustento empírico a sus proposiciones asumidas. El término ontología aquí es tan irrelevante como no excluyente. Ni idea qué tienen que ver los comunistas en una discusión sobre la escuela austriaca, ni idea qué aporta para usted el ad hominem y la proyección salvo a mostrarme el nivel en el que discuten personas sobreideologizadas e irrespetuosas de su calaña. Buenas noches/dias.

if u like the british accent..

Since you'll be around portuguese literature, how about Saramago? And some brazilians, too! Machado de Assis on literature, Darcy Ribeiro on Sociology, Paulo Freire on Political Theory... And so on!

CELSO FURTADO on economy!

apoiado

+The School of Life Yaaaay!

+1 on pessoa, and maybe dylan thomas ?

It's because its very incomplete, its assumptions questionable, and it's aversion to mathematical models means it doesnt incorporate the latest discoveries well if at all.

Austrian school of thought is very important in economics, practically it hasn't been applied but it's a very important topic for economics students and in capitalism too. The one that is ignored in economics is those Marxism, socialism kinda stuff

Hell I’m somewhat sympathetic to Keynes but the mainstream idea to simply disregard the opposition is itself utter quackery. Hayek and others within the Austrian school of economics make valid points about not only the economy but also the drawbacks contemporary politics could have on it and thus should essential to at least be familiar with their train of thought. The problem with Academia, at least from my perspective, is has devolved into some sort of dogmatism that stifles the debate which in the end is ultimately counterproductive.

@@yydd4954 I’m studying economics right now and I’m telling you, at least where I’m at, Marxism and Socialism are not being ignored whilst I had to study Hayek in my free time

@@zackkilgore528 oh that's sad bro Maybe in future I might have to study it But for now I have mainly studied classical and Keynes

Maybe he was initially okay with them (I haven't read his stuff yet)?

@@KarmasAB123 I've read the entire collected works of Hayek (besides the pure theory of capital) that would be a huge contradiction of his philosophy, as he lays out in constitution of liberty, and all 3 volumes of law legislation and liberty.

As usual. RU-vid videos have their Fairshare of bias. Most are left leaning.

Hayek supported Pinochet

@@theomitchell416 Hayek supported Pinochet because he was a capitalist

You may enjoy reading Ha Joon Chang's book "Economics: the user's guide." It's very readable for the ordinary person. (However you may not be ordinary???)

But that's the beauty of Hayek's line of thinking. Economies evolve much faster than governments, and the solutions government agencies manage to arrive at quite often become too little too late. This is the best case scenario. Worse still is when they are being swayed by an entrenched cadre of too big to fail corporations. By propping up bad business you turn a once thriving capitalistic system into a tumorous mess of unsustainable persistence.

+MalicProductions And the fundamental error in Hayek's line of thinking is that he treats markets and economies as "natural" while they're utterly created and/or caused by man. Man can't change the laws of nature, but man can change the way the markets operate by simply making or changing his own laws,rules and regulations. Businesses that control huge numbers of people's money can really grow to big to fail if you as a government let them because you fail to regulate them properly, so you really have to bail them out if you don't want huge numbers of people to end up in poverty.

But then what happens if, or rather when, those businesses fail and their isn't enough money to prop them up? What if, after decade after decade of government guarantees, the country that invests so heavily into these failing dying things happens to collapse. What happens when you start to run everything on bailouts and the bailouts dry up? I'd rather take the potential chance that poverty spikes (though the political theory in this video heavily disagrees with this assertion, as the lack of excessive upward wealth acquisition would result in better pay for middle and lower class people) rather than witness recession after recession. Bailouts are like giving chocolate to schoolyard bullies and expecting them to play ball. In a true capitalist society the schoolyard bully would be devoured by smaller children, who would themselves one day be devoured by other small children. It allows the market, or the bully ecosystem, to blossom into a more spontaneous and customer pleasing mess. Without the threat of consumption the bully will never need to change his ways, and instead elect to get fatter and fatter on candy bars until their is none left for the rest of the school. The only regulations I support are the ones that directly protect people from physical harm, either through injury or poor environmental planning. Everything else should be left up to the market. Couple that with an education that produces high quality consumers rather than what we have today and you wouldn't have hardly any of the problems we face today.

+MalicProductions If there isn't enough money we print more, we're the government so spending more money than we own is business as usual. After we've bailed them out, we should regulate them and split them up so they're no longer too big to fail. Not splitting them up after bailing them out so the same scenario can happen again and they'll be able to put the poverty-gun to our head again is a huge mistake. Bailouts are more like you live in the desert besides a river and you have to pay the big guy upstream for not polluting the river with nuclear waste. In your society of very limited regulations there wouldn't be a free market at all because you simply don't have the regulations in place to enable such a thing. Everybody would be free to mislead, cheat and rob each other blind (all on paper without any physical violence of course).

Markets are natural. For example we all need to eat, so someone has to provide food for us and we thus have to buy food. The need for you to eat causes you to find a job or do something that will allow you to produce something that will be exchanged for food. Money is just the vehicle that drives these exchanges. The issue of too big to fail is one economist have not really looked into. But whether banks are big or small if you allow the financial sector to crash you will destroy the entire economy. The singular bankruptcy and extinction of Lehmann Brothers was the straw that broke the camel's back. Had Goldman, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Citi and other big banks been allowed to fail, America would still be in recession and the camel would be in a coma. Regulating banks better, Cutting bonuses, exec pay and seeing that profits are shared with the rest of the workers will help fight inequality and promote long term planning and not short term gambling

I was just thinking this ! and argentina remains, unfortunately, in the shitter

aynen ahahsha beklemiyodum

All blamed on the free market to add insult to injury.

Inequality.... I don't like Thatcher, but when she said "You'd like to be poorer, provided that the rich had less than they have now". Left Wing Economics is a crusade against the Rich, nothing less, nothing more.

Thank you!

Can you imagine the comment section shitstorm?

i asked that once and they literally answered no, im not kidding they did and everyone who answered after was debating it XD

Daniel Baskakov I think people just read the surface of her philosophy without going into the details of it, so people immediately hate her. When you're actually open to her ideas, they really are eye opening.

her philosophy? oo c'mooon

@@DolphinPain Ayn "I know the only absolute truth and once your smart enough you will agree with me" Rand

Hayek did not support laissez-faire. See this: marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/10/hayeks-liberaltarian-essay-free-enterprise-and-competitive-order.html