 Today my topic is the compatibility of Hayek and natural rights. The reason for this topic is the fact that it is well known and does not need proof that Hayek rejected natural rights or was never, it never mentions natural rights. Obviously during his lifetime many natural rights advocates criticized Hayek for this and Hayek did not in the face of this criticism ever change or incorporate a natural rights analysis into his work. Now there are probably many reasons why Hayek took this position. The most, and I won't attempt to be comprehensive in explaining his choice, probably the most obvious reason is that Hayek was as you know an opponent of what you might call rational constructivism. The idea that one can design order, design society, he was much more in favor of a spontaneous evolutionary development of norms, morality, etc. Whereas he associated no doubt natural rights with the constructivism of the French Revolution and other modern natural rights approaches. I think my thesis today is that had Hayek been more aware of or taken into account a more classical conception of natural rights theory he would have found himself in sympathy, general sympathy with this approach and so I have two purposes in my talk today. One is to explain to you as best I can the classical conception of natural rights and the second is to then explain how Hayek's approach is compatible with this conception. Before I begin I want to have one caveat and that is this is not the only conception of natural rights there is it is not the the modern conception and it may not even be accurately describing all the classical natural rights thinkers but I do believe it describes what you see when you read classical natural rights work and by classical natural rights work I refer to 17th and 18th century natural rights advocates. Natural rights thinking the natural rights process of reasoning is what I have described in the structure of liberty as given if then reasoning it's the form of reasoning given if then which I have written on the board behind me and that's the logical structure given certain facts if you want to accomplish certain ends then you had best respect certain means and what makes it a natural law or natural natural law approach I'll get to natural rights in a minute is the fact that it the given the facts are the nature of human beings and the world in which we live so the way this form of reasoning proceeds is given the nature of human beings and the world in which we live if you want to accomplish certain ends then you would best respect certain means now this form of reasoning is extremely pervasive even today is not limited to natural rights forms of reasoning for example it it would apply to any discipline that purports to guide individual conduct it doesn't apply to for example scientific disciplines that are not trying to advise us as to how we should act but it would apply to such disciplines as engineering architecture agriculture any of the disciplines that purport to tell us how we should behave if we want to accomplish certain objectives so in for example in the case of architecture the idea is given the nature of human beings and the world in which we live if you want to build a building in which you can hold classes perhaps hold three or four hundred people then you had best respect certain principles of architecture perhaps including rules governing air conditioning but we can measure a room by its proximity to these principles same thing with agriculture if you given the nature of human beings and the world in which we live if you want to grow crops to feed human beings then you had best respect certain principles of agriculture so we see that this form of reasoning is very pervasive in everyday life now I've had them I've distributed a handout here which I hope you've received it's a one page handout I guess I see some you have it in order for you to see that this is not just my attribution to classical natural rights thinkers I wanted to give you this example of a natural rights thinker he was a reverend clergyman in the US this is actually an excerpt from a sermon he gave to members of the Pennsylvania the Pennsylvania delegation to the constitutional convention of the United States before they were depart to do to convene which is a very common American practice to have a clergyman at that time to have a clergyman come in and give a sermon to the legislature before they begin their session or in this case it was to the delegates to the constitutional convention it's a very long and illuminating survey I've put I've drawn out this one excerpt which I want to go over to show you how this method works and how it represents the way of thinking at the time of classical natural rights if you read it let's read along together the principles of society are the laws which Almighty God has established in the moral world and made necessary to be observed by mankind in order to promote their true happiness in their transactions and intercourse now let me make let me stop here and make one comment about the first sentence well actually I want to talk about the Almighty God reference but let me continue on and I'll come back and talk about it these laws may be considered as principles these laws may be considered as principles in respect of their fixedness and operation and as maxims since by the knowledge of them we discover the rules of conduct which direct mankind to the highest perfection and supreme happiness of their nature and here's an important sentence I've added the italics they are as fixed and unchangeable as the laws which operate in the natural world human art in order to produce certain effects must conform to the principles and laws which the Almighty Creator has established in the natural world now let me stop here and mention this reference to the Almighty Creator it is very common for contemporary philosophers or even non-philosophers to associate classical natural rights theory with divine law or divine will quotations such as this which are very common and representative encourage this association this is incorrect the better way to think of the of this quotation and all like similar quotations is that natural law and natural rights are derived from based upon the order that is in the world there is a factual claim that the world is an orderly place and it is from this order that we use our reason to determine certain natural laws and certain natural rights where did the order come from in this time it was thought the order came from Almighty God from the Creator so under this view the Creator is the source the explanation for why the world is an orderly place but even had there been no Creator as Grosius observes even had there been no Creator a thought which we cannot and let enter our mind says Grosius natural law would still be true because it would be based on the order that we find there so if for example today you reject the idea that the world was created by a superior supreme being but you accept the idea that it is an orderly place nevertheless then natural everything about natural law natural rights follows it is not there is not a necessary connection between these two all right let's continue because now you'll see the analogy to agriculture and engineering as I mentioned before he who neglects the cultivation of his field and the proper time of selling may not expect to harvest he who would assist mankind in raising weights and overcoming obstacles depends on certain rules derived from the knowledge of mechanical principles apply to the construction of machines in order to give the most useful effect to the smallest force and every builder should well understand the best position of firmness and strength when he is about to erect an edifice and I like this next sentence a lot for he who attempts these things on other principles than those of nature attempts to make a new world and his aim will prove absurd and his labor lost no more can mankind be conducted to happiness or civil society is united and enjoy peace and prosperity without observing the moral principles and connections which the almighty creator has established for the government of the moral world so this is the conception of natural rights that I this is a very explicit recognition of the method by which natural rights are to be determined and their stature relative to other principles that we are accustomed to principles of engineering and agriculture and obviously there are certain well so here and so here is let me just tell you now what the natural rights position is because this really describes what I think of as more a natural law methodology we haven't really spoken of natural rights yet we've only spoken of a natural law methodology that from which we derive a natural rights conclusion what makes a natural rights analysis distinctive is what you put in the if what is the end and that end is different than the end of growing crops the end of rate the end of building buildings or even the end of living a good life what we put in the if is different and here's what I would put in the if this is what I think natural rights thinkers put in the if if you want a society in which people can pursue happiness peace and prosperity while living in close proximity to others that's what I think goes in the if that's the objective and the so the whole form of reasoning is given the nature of human beings and the world in which we find ourselves if you want a society in which people can pursue happiness peace and prosperity while living in close proximity to each other then you had best respect certain principles of justice and the rule of law and we define justice by means of individual rights certain individual rights and the conclusion of the analysis well so that's what I think a natural rights analysis is attempting to do now in the structure of liberty I argue about what I I offer a thesis as to what the nature of the human beings are and the nature of the world is such that natural rights are the the essential means for achieving the end of happiness peace and prosperity and the thesis of the book which I will not impose upon you this morning is that there are certain pervasive social problems that all societies must solve somehow and these problems come in three categories problems of knowledge problems of interest and problems of power and I won't define these problems now but the it unless a society solves these problems somehow they will not be people not be able to pursue happiness peace and prosperity and I've written I've sort of written a diagram on the board which suggests that that so solving the problems of knowledge argues for certain rights certain conception of justice in the rule of law solving the problem of interest does in the book I talk about three problems of knowledge three problems of interest and two problems of power so what then is the connection between a natural rights analysis and Hayekian thought I think at this point it may be rather easy for you to see it as obvious as the fact that the analysis that I present in the structure of liberty begins with the problem of knowledge and by the problem of knowledge I'm referring exactly to the Hayekian problem of knowledge that was pointed out in his famous essay the use of knowledge society that professor Becker mentioned in his opening address to you he credited Hayek this is being Hayek one of Hayek's most significant contributions and had he not made any other contribution his career would have been a very fruitful one and I agree with that I have recommended this essay to my students the news of knowledge in society is critical that is how that is the knowledge problem that I that I'm referring to and that is how do we put the personal and local knowledge we have of time and circumstances into action while somehow taking into account all the knowledge of others that we are hopelessly ignorant of so the knowledge problem has two dimensions putting into action that which we know or we think we know about our circumstances while somehow taking into account the the knowledge of others that we can't possibly know now how do we solve that problem we solve that problem as Hayek explains through the use of price resource prices and what makes resource prices communicate communicate the knowledge of the people as to time place in circumstances well it's the fact that you cannot take someone's resources from them without first obtaining their consent this is what the classical natural rights thinkers refer to as the natural right of freedom of contract you cannot take some somebody's rights property from them without their consent it's only because of respect for this right that resource prices have any meaning why is that because if you if there is a requirement of consent before you can take someone's property away then you must offer that person or that person must receive something that they would rather have than what they are giving up so they consent or they could give it to you for free but that's because they'd rather have some satisfaction but let's limit ourselves now to just trans market transactions you must offer a person you must obtain their consent by offering them something they would rather have than what they're giving up subjectively rather have and this injects this need to make the offer and to receive the acceptance injects the knowledge of the person who has the rights the property rights into the price system because it is the price you have to pay to get their consent that begins the chain of communication that prices represent that's where it starts and then from then everyone else has to do the same thing in every price every exchange has to be obtained by consent one after the other and that's in the aggregate how prices contain information consider the alternative supposing that you overrode a right of consent and you just took something from someone because you thought you could use it better then the result in prices if we would even dignify what results as a price by calling it a price the result in prices would lack the information possessed by the first person whose property was taken simple as that it's as simple as saying no right to freedom of contract no meaningful prices so it is implied in the Hayekian analysis of resource prices as the means of solving the problem of knowledge that there should be a natural right or there should be there should be a right to withhold one's consent before a transaction is made and we call this a natural right because this claim that there should be there ought to be such a right recognized in every society is based on the nature of human beings and the world in which we find ourselves so in this respect I believe there is no conflict between a Hayekian approach in and in and a classical natural rights approach and in fact I think that you cannot make a Hayekian approach work without a recognition of the fundamental natural rights of property freedom of contract first possession restitution and self-defense thank you