Hayek and Hazlett: Rule of Law or Emergence by Anarchy?

In this archival Free To Choose Network footage, Friedrich Hayek and Thomas Hazlett discuss anarchy and the rule of law, Hazlett poses a question that teases out the tension between advocates of a minimal state and anarcho-capitalists... Hayek's answer gets to the core of this ongoing debate.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• F.A. Hayek
• Hayek
• Thomas Hazlett
• rationalism
• rule of law
• constructivism
• anarchy
• anarcho-capitalism
• spontaneous order

[dubified89]

Man videos with this guy need captions because I can't understand a word he says.

[robkal56]

He ends on a fascinating concept: competing for citizens.

[Malthus0]

Has anyone else noticed the parallel between the law arguement & the money arguement. It would be best if there was only one global sound money. Yet given the knowledge problem we can not trust that we will get good money even from a benevolent government/s. So allowing competition is actualy better. One world society(sharing same laws) would be optimal however we can not trust even benevolent government to give it to us. So peacefully competing governments/institutions is better.

[Helionaeic]

Emergence of Legal systems are a consequence of social respect for individual private property. Utilization of the property cannot proceed without the anticipation that the production will be secure to the owner. Thus, the owner's first priority is to seek mutual defense by entering into agreement with others for this protection. As a consequence, the law that competes the best will spread the furthest overcoming Hayek's conjecture that you can't trade with strangers.

[FreeEcon]

Hayek's statement that governments are needed to produce a universal system of laws is undermined by the fact that today, you have many countries with vastly different systems able to cooperate and communicate with each other quite peacefully and voluntarily. Why is this? Economic interdependence.

[ProIndividual]

The only justifiably ethical authority, is by those affected, ONLY. The decentralization of authority to the individual is usually the only legitimate form of authority. As Benjamin Tucker put it, if you have the (mental and physical) ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself, and if no one else is directly harmed in the process, then all external government is tyranny.

[ProIndividual]

There is only one law in anarchism, "do no harm", therefore this problem he describes isn't truely present in anarchy. I agree, however, with his sentiment that law should be judged not by it's effect in well meaning hands, but the effect in the worst hands. We never seem to remember that every law is subject to interpretation of the tyrant in power at the time, and if our tyrant be less benign, the tyranny of all laws become apparent. "Do no harm" is the only legitimate law, natural law.

[trekkerperson]

Brilliant man. Classical liberalism is not sold by talking points but by deeper methodological reasoning than say the much of emotional driven people who have this sort of utopian ideals offered by statists of any brand.