What Hayek published should be assessed separately from what he "thought".  Behind "pretty clear" public logic lies another world which, so far, I have found only one Hayekian understands.    

1. In the market for influence, Hayek embraced the Galbraithian model of producer sovereignty: consumers had to be bent to the will of the producer. 

For Hayek, conclusions precede justifications: "At first we all felt [Mises] was frightfully exaggerating and even offensive in tone. You see, he hurt all our deepest feelings, but gradually he won us around, although for a long time I had to-- I just learned he was usually right in his conclusions, but I was not completely satisfied with his argument. That, I think, followed me right through my life. I was always influenced by Mises's answers, but not fully satisfied by his arguments. It became very largely an attempt to improve the argument, which I realized led to correct conclusions. But the question of why it hadn't persuaded most other people became important to me; so I became anxious to put it in a more effective form."

Leo Rosten may have come close to understanding Hayek with his reference to Plato's "one royal lie" (which is part of the tradition of political thought). 

Rosen also referred to "the religious foundations of a society." Hayek was an atheist who was contemptous of those who believed in "the factual assertions of religion, which are crude because they all believe in ghosts of some kind ... I still don't know what people mean by God ... I don't believe a word of it ... In spite of these strong views I have, I've never publicly argued against religion because I agree that probably most people need it."    

2. Hayek embraced "minority privileges" - the illegal Hapsburg intergenerational entitlement program and the associated aristocratic lifetsyle.  

3. Trade sanctions do not represent "interference with the policy of other countries" - they were designed as an incentive structure to encourage "free immigration" (or more accurately the abolition of the pass laws) etc. Hayek approved of the free flow of goods and services within the Hapsburg Empire - but not the free flow of labour (or at least the migration of a certain type of Jew into Vienna). Not that Hayek was particularly anti-Semetic: but the same arguments were used to justify the apartheid pass laws.               

4. Hayek's "thought" cannot adequately be captured by phrases such as he "defended a system of national democracies." For some Austrians, democracy is "the God that failed."  

RL
  
----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Doug Mackenzie" <[log in to unmask]>
A: [log in to unmask]
Inviato: Martedì, 22 novembre 2011 14:50:03
Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted: Worldly Philosophers"

The references to international competition are mainly in Hayek's "The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism" and "The Road to Serfdom". Hayek actually got this from Robbins' "Economic Planning and International Order". So, as I suggested before, Hayek's doubts about the effectiveness of sanctions against South Africa appear to be the result of his belief that international competition- given some degree of free trade and better still free immigration- were the most effective means of removing minority privileges- the RTS is pretty clear about this. Keynes wrote that he was in 'deeply moved agreement with nearly the whole of' the Road to Serfdom, BTW. So Hayek defended a system of national democracies in a liberal international order, and Keynes strongly agreed. Perhaps we could drop all of this now.

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

> "There is no reference to international competition and
> trade sanctions in this interview."
> 
> RL 
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Robert Leeson" <[log in to unmask]>
> A: "Societies for the History of Economics" <[log in to unmask]>
> Inviato: Venerdì, 18 novembre 2011 12:49:17
> Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted: Worldly
> Philosophers"
> 
> There is reference to international competition and trade
> sanctions in this interview. America started as a colony;
> apartheid was the remnant of a colony. 
> 
> Hayek is referring to 
> 
> 1. anti-colonialism 
> 
> "An early instance was the extreme American
> anti-colonialism: the way in which the Dutch, for instance,
> were forced overnight to abandon Indonesia, which certainly
> hasn't done good to anybody in that form. This, I gather,
> was entirely due to American pressure, with America being
> completely unaware that the opposition to colonialism by
> Americans is rather a peculiar phenomenon." 
>  
> 2. his contempt for democracy: "a republic of peasants and
> workers."
> 
> 3. what (rather typically for a European) he regards as the
> malign influence of the "fads" or "passing fashions" of the
> shallow (i.e. easily influenced) Americans:
> 
> "you come to a big American city and can't find a single
> bookstore" 
> 
> "Americans are not very educated" 
> 
> Americans "no longer walk. My wife used to say that they
> would soon lose the capacity to walk"
> 
> Americans have "Too great a readiness to accept very
> simplified theories of explanation." 
> 
> The Road to Serfdom received "unmeasured praise from
> [American] people who probably never read it"
> 
> A "stunt" is helpful when dealing with Americans: "I began
> with a tone of profound conviction, not knowing how I would
> end the sentence, and it turned out that the American public
> is an exceedingly grateful and easy public ... I didn't know
> in the end what I had said, but evidently it was a very
> successful lecture ... what I did in America was a very
> corrupting experience. You become an actor, and I didn't
> know I had it in me. But given the opportunity to play with
> an audience, I began enjoying it. [laughter]"
> 
> RL
>  
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Doug Mackenzie" <[log in to unmask]>
> A: [log in to unmask]
> Inviato: Giovedì, 17 novembre 2011 22:16:02
> Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted: Worldly
> Philosophers"
> 
> Hayek's position on these issues was that international
> competition in global markets limited the power and the
> abuse of power in modern states. So his opposition to trade
> sanctions in this interview is consistent with his writings
> on this subject. Since Hayek believed that the subtle
> pressure of competition worked better than the overt
> pressure of trade sanctions, he opposed trade sanctions.
> This does not make him a Nazi supporter, as you suggested
> earlier. On the contrary, the exact quote reveals that Hayek
> agreed that South Africa had problems that needed solving.
> Robert jumped to very offensive conclusions on the basis of
> his inadequate understanding of Hayek's thought.
> 
> "Hayek devoted a large part of his life to exerting
> external pressure on countries (interference) to reduce
> trade union power"
> 
> So writing books and articles is equivalent to imposing
> trade sanctions? This seems rather unreasonable. 
> 
> Mises was quite clear in his 1927 book that while Fascism
> both 'saved' Europe from Bolshevism, it also posed a threat
> to Europe. Why then resort to such misrepresentation?
> 
> > Depending on tribal loyalty, the Mises (1927
> _Liberalism_)
> > ("popular front"?) link to Fascism could be
> interpreted as
> > being as strong or as weak as the Keynes link to
> > totalitarianism:
> 
> Is this list supposed to be about 'tribes' flinging mud?
> Neither Keynes nor Hayek supported fascism, they were both
> very clear about this. James wrong when he suggested this
> about Keynes, but Robert was very much out of line with his
> retaliatory remarks. Fighting fire with fire just causes a
> bad situation to escalate. I suggest that both "tribes"
> adopt a more civil and professional tone, so as to maintain
> the integrity of this list.
> 
> D.W. MacKenzie, Ph.D.
> Carroll College, Helena MT
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 11/17/11, Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Where is the evidence that "Hayek
> > specifically stated that he sympathized with the
> general aim
> > of those who wanted to act against South Africa, but
> only
> > disagreed with their methods"? Hayek stated that
> concern
> > about human rights had led "to a degree of
> interference with
> > the policy of other countries which, even if I
> sympathized
> > with the general aim, I don't think it's in the least
> > justified."  
> > 
> > "You see, my problem with all this is the whole role
> of
> > what I commonly call the intellectuals, which I have
> long
> > ago defined as the secondhand dealers in ideas. For
> some
> > reason or other, they are probably more subject to
> waves of
> > fashion in ideas and more influential in the American
> sense
> > than they are elsewhere. Certain main concerns can
> spread
> > here with an incredible speed. Take the conception of
> human
> > rights. I'm not sure whether it's an invention of the
> > present administration or whether it's of an older
> date, but
> > I suppose if you told an eighteen year old that human
> rights
> > is a new discovery he wouldn't believe it. He would
> have
> > thought the United States for 200 years has been
> committed
> > to human rights, which of course would be absurd. The
> United
> > States discovered human rights two years ago or five
> years
> > ago. Suddenly it's the main object and leads to a
> degree of
> > interference with the policy of other countries which,
> even
> > if I sympathized with the general aim, I don't think
> it's in
> > the least justified. People in South Africa have to
> deal
> > with their own problems, and the idea that you can
> use
> > external pressure to change people, who after all have
> built
> > up a civilization of a kind, seems to me morally a
> very
> > doubtful belief. But it's a dominating belief in the
> United
> > States now." 
> > 
> > Hayek devoted a large part of his life to exerting
> external
> > pressure on countries (interference) to reduce trade
> union
> > power - with one exception, apartheid South Africa
> (the
> > quintessential trade union state). Apartheid was
> designed to
> > keep non-whites out of trades, professions and the
> > electorate. The imposition of the contrived order of
> the
> > Africaans language led to the 1976 riots. For
> non-whites,
> > human capital formation and wages were suppressed by
> the
> > State.  In contrast, when the human rights of
> Falkland
> > Islanders were violated, Hayek advocated that
> mainland
> > Argentina be bombed.         
> >    
> > 
> > Hayek had a history of making what could be
> interpreted as
> > racists comments: "I don't have many strong dislikes.
> I
> > admit that as a teacher--I have no racial prejudices
> in
> > general--but there were certain types, and conspicuous
> among
> > them the Near Eastern populations, which I still
> dislike
> > because they are fundamentally dishonest. And I must
> say
> > dishonesty is a thing I intensely dislike. It was a
> type
> > which, in my childhood in Austria, was described as
> > Levantine, typical of the people of the eastern
> > Mediterranean. But I encountered it later, and I have
> a
> > profound dislike for the typical Indian students at
> the
> > London School of Economics, which I admit are all one
> > type--Bengali moneylender sons. They are to me a
> detestable
> > type, I admit, but not with any racial feeling. I have
> found
> > a little of the same amongst the Egyptians--basically
> a lack
> > of honesty in them." He also appeared to be surprised
> when
> > "negroes" produced quality academic work.  
> > 
> > Depending on tribal loyalty, the Mises (1927
> _Liberalism_)
> > ("popular front"?) link to Fascism could be
> interpreted as
> > being as strong or as weak as the Keynes link to
> > totalitarianism:
> >  
> > "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar
> movements
> > aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full
> of the
> > best intentions and that their intervention has, for
> the
> > moment, saved European civilization. The merit that
> Fascism
> > has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in
> > history. But though its policy has brought salvation
> for the
> > moment, it is not of the kind which could promise
> continued
> > success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view
> it as
> > something more would be a fatal error." 
> > 
> > RL
> > 
> > ----- Messaggio originale -----
> > Da: "Doug Mackenzie" <[log in to unmask]>
> > A: [log in to unmask]
> > Inviato: Giovedì, 17 novembre 2011 16:56:54
> > Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted:
> Worldly
> > Philosophers"
> > 
> > Its not a matter of Hayek's comments being nuanced.
> Hayek
> > was criticizing advocacy of external pressure on
> countries
> > like South Africa- even when he sympathizes with the
> general
> > aim. Since Hayek specifically stated that he
> sympathized
> > with the general aim of those who wanted to act
> against
> > South Africa, but only disagreed with their methods, I
> have
> > concluded that Robert either did not understand what
> Hayek
> > said, or was trying to smear Hayek. 
> > 
> > I thank Alan for providing this link to the interview,
> but
> > I see no ethical problem with disagreeing with means
> towards
> > an agreed upon end.
> > 
> > Robert also stated that Mises supported Fascism. Is
> there
> > evidence behind this smear, or is it just another
> > misrepresentation?
> > 
> > List members should be careful to verify such
> inflamatory
> > and offensive claims before submitting them to this
> list.
> > 
> > Doug MacKenzie, Ph.D.
> > Carroll College
> > 
> > > From: Alan G Isaac <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Subject: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman,
> "Wanted:
> > Worldly Philosophers"
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011, 8:39 AM
> > > On 11/17/2011 8:00 AM, Robert Leeson
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hayek's 1978 defence of the "civilisation"
> of
> > the
> > > Nazi-led
> > > > apartheid regime against the "fashion ...
> of
> > human
> > > rights"
> > > > which the US discovered "two years ago or
> five
> > years
> > > ago."
> > > 
> > > Since it may help to have a source for Robert's
> quote
> > > fragments:
> > > http://www.hayek.ufm.edu/index.php?title=Bob_Chitester_part_I&p=video1&b=930&e=1037
> > > 
> > > While I consider Hayek's comments to be more
> nuanced
> > than
> > > Robert's presentation suggests, they are
> certainly not
> > his
> > > finest hour, either analytically or ethically.
> > > 
> > > Alan Isaac
> > > 
> >
>