Hayek endorsed the Anarcho-Capitalist book Defending the Undefendable (1976)

"Looking through Defending the Undefendable made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority." 

Hayek also wrote Denationalizing Money after winning the Nobel. This was a movement towards laissez faire. 

Hayek wrote some remark on how society would continue on without any government (though he did not recommend such a move)- not sure when or in which book offhand, but it might have been post-Nobel.
 

D.W. MacKenzie, Ph.D.
Carroll College, Helena MT



--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/29/13, Bruce Caldwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [SHOE] policy view changes of Nobel Prize winners
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Date: Thursday, August 29, 2013, 7:52 AM
 
 Regarding Hayek, in the intro to the
 1976 reprint of Serfdom he says 
 "Where I now feel I was wrong in this book is... that I had
 not wholly 
 freed myself from all the current interventionist
 superstitions, and in 
 consequence still made various concessions which I now think
 
 unwarranted." Being Hayek, he did not elaborate what those
 concessions 
 were, so I am less confident than is Barkley in being able
 to identify 
 them. But it does seem that he moved away from the rampant 
 interventionism so evident in his radically interventionist
 Road to 
 Serfdom! (I am channeling Mises here...) So I would say he
 could be 
 included in at least the "little" or "notably" changed camp.
 I suppose 
 if one goes back to his socialist student days, he might be
 in the 
 "quite significantly" camp, but that seems like a stretch to
 me.
 Friedman was certainly more interventionist in the 1930s
 than he was 
 later, at least concerning constraining corporations.
 Bruce
 
 
 On 8/26/2013 1:18 PM, Rosser, John Barkley - rosserjb
 wrote:
 > My quick reply is that some of those labeled as having
 grown much more classically liberal after their trips to
 Stockholm were already very classically liberal and I am
 unaware of much specifically further movement in that
 direction afterwards.  Several of those in that
 category of much more may fit, but the one that really
 sticks out is Hayek.  About the only way I can think of
 that he might have become more classically liberal was in
 his view of health care policy, where he may have become
 more anti-national health insurance after 1974. 
 Otherwise, if anything it could be argued he moved in the
 opposite direction, particularly if one takes a Misesian
 hard line that his open turn against a priorism and more
 strongly towards an evolutionary perspective (which he had
 been already moving towards for some time) made him "less
 classically liberal," although obviously that is a highly
 debatable matter.
 >
 > Barkley Rosser
 >
 > ________________________________________
 > From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on
 behalf of Pedro Teixeira [[log in to unmask]]
 > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 11:30 AM
 > To: [log in to unmask]
 > Subject: Re: [SHOE] policy view changes of Nobel Prize
 winners
 >
 > Dear David,
 >
 > I wonder if you could be more explicit about the
 criteria used to classify one scholar as notably or only a
 little or significantly.
 > Although I understand that there is an inevitable
 degree of subjectivity involved in these assessments, I
 think our reply to your questions is largely conditioned by
 those criteria.
 > I also wonder what was the reason to exclude authors
 such as Gary Becker, Joseph Stiglitz, or Gunnar Myrdal.
 >
 > Best regards,
 >
 > Pedro
 >
 > Pedro Nuno Teixeira
 > Director - CIPES, Centre for Research in Higher
 Education Policies - www.cipes.up.pt
 > Associate Professor - Faculty of Economics, University
 of Porto - www.fep.up.pt
 >
 > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Colander, David C.
 <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
 wrote:
 > I playing the role of overseer of a project organized
 by Dan Klein to consider the intellectual migration of Nobel
 Prize winning economist’s policy views. The project 
 will be published in the journal, Econ Journal Watch, in
 September.  What “overseer” means is that I am a
 type of referee before publication, and my job is to keep
 him honest, and see that his analysis is not overly
 influenced by his political views. His goal with the
 project, is to see which Nobel Prize winning economists can
 be classified as having become more or less classical
 liberal. Classical liberal is, of course, a difficult term
 to define, but what he means by classical liberal is a
 presumption in policy judgment away from government
 involvement and toward letting the market handle
 it.   Given this definition, he has
 tentatively come up with the following readings for 16
 laureates:
 >
 >
 > Laureates Who Grew
 > Either More or Less
 > Classical Liberal
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Grew
 > More Classical Liberal
 >
 >
 >
 > Quite significantly
 >
 >
 > James Buchanan
 > Ronald Coase
 > Robert Fogel
 > Friedrich Hayek
 > Franco Modigliani
 > Douglass North
 > Vernon Smith
 >
 >
 >
 > Notably
 >
 >
 >
 > Theodore Schultz
 >
 >
 >
 > Only a little
 >
 >
 >
 > Kenneth Arrow
 > Milton Friedman
 > Eric Maskin
 > (Edmund Phelps?)
 > George Stigler
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Grew
 > Less
 > Classical
 > Liberal
 >
 >
 > Quite significantly
 >
 >
 >
 > Ragnar Frisch
 > Bertil Ohlin
 >
 >
 > Notably
 >
 >
 >
 > Peter Diamond
 >
 >
 > Only a little
 >
 >
 >
 > Paul Krugman
 >
 >
 > Please note that Dan's placements are still tentative.
 He and I fully recognize that there are many different
 definitions of classical liberal that one could use, and I
 am not asking people to comment on those definitions here.
 (I will comment on it at length in my contribution to his
 project.) But I would be interested in the list’s views
 about the movements he has found.  Specifically, I have
 two questions:
 > 1.      Do any of his classifications
 stand out as not fitting your expectations?
 > 2.      Are there other Nobel Prize
 winners who you would see as having moved in their policy
 views that should be included in the list?
 >
 > Thanks,
 >
 > Dave
 >
 > David Colander
 > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
 > 802-443-5302<tel:802-443-5302>
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > --
 > Mario J. Rizzo
 > NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
 > Department of Economics
 > 19 West 4th Street,
 > Seventh Floor (725)
 > New York, NY 10012
 > 212-998-8932 (telephone, e-mail preferred)
 > 212-995-4186 (fax)
 >
 > Personal website: http://works.bepress.com/mario_rizzo
 >
 > Colloquium: http://econ.as.nyu.edu/object/econ.event.colloquium
 >
 > Blog:  http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com
 >
 > Book Series: http://www.routledge.com/books/series/Routledge_Foundations_of_the_Market_Economy/
 
 
 -- 
 Bruce Caldwell
 Research Professor of Economics
 Director, Center for the History of Political Economy
 
 "To discover a reference has often taken hours of labour, to
 fail to discover one has often taken days." Edwin Cannan, on
 editing  Smith's Wealth of Nations
 
 Address:
 Department of Economics
 Duke University
 Box 90097
 Durham, N.C. 27708
 
 Office: Room 07G Social Sciences Building
 Phone: 919-660-6896
 Center website: http://hope.econ.duke.edu
 Personal Website: http://econ.duke.edu/~bjc18/