
Friedrich Hayek on Evolution and Spontaneous Order (1983) [video] - eigenvalue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQhqZ-iWMRM
======
eigenvalue
It's a bit hard to focus on because of his accent and slow speaking style, but
if you can stick with it, this is a fantastic lecture filled with interesting
and stimulating ideas. I hadn't realized prior to listening to this that
Darwin had in fact gotten many of his ideas on evolution from the social
sciences, particularly Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

~~~
SllX
Friedrich Hayek put the Austrian in Austrian Economics; the term was invented
by the Germans and was meant to be disparaging towards him and others like
him.

Hayek has an extensive body of written work, the jewel of which is “The Road
to Serfdom”. Russ Roberts of the Hoover Institute has hosted an ongoing
podcast called EconTalk[1] that while not studying Hayek specifically, often
brings a Hayekian viewpoint to his discussions with guests.

[1] [https://www.econtalk.org/](https://www.econtalk.org/)

~~~
eigenvalue
This an interesting interview with Hayek from 1982:

[https://www.cato.org/policy-
report/february-1982/interview-f...](https://www.cato.org/policy-
report/february-1982/interview-fa-hayek)

His quote here makes me think he would have rejoiced at the idea of Bitcoin:

"Well, I have despaired of ever again finding a way of restraining government
abuse of any money which it issues. My proposal to denationalize money was
always in a sense Utopian because governments will never freely allow
competition in this business. I believe there are ways around this, and my
present view—which I hope before long to state in detail—is that there is
probably a possibility of not issuing currency but starting with credit
accounts under some other name—say, call the unit a “stable” and promise to
redeem it with enough of whatever current monies are required to buy a certain
list of raw materials. So it doesn’t involve issuing any circulating money,
but it enables the holder to keep a stable unit in the form of a credit. Once
you’ve succeeded in this, the next step would be issuing credit cards on these
accounts. And then you have circumvented the whole monopoly of government.
Since it is politically impractical to deprive the government of its monopoly,
you have to circumvent it."

~~~
neilwilson
If you’ve ever tried paying your taxes in Bitcoin you’ll have discovered the
limitation of this viewpoint.

The government monopoly isn’t over money. You can use and issue whatever money
you can get others to accept.

The monopoly is over the denomination required to extinguish the liability
that government has the legal power to impose upon you and while you live in
its sovereign area. Aka taxation

Ultimately you cannot circumvent state money while there are states that
control land areas. You will always need their money to pay taxes and that
need is sufficient to allow a state to provision itself - since the only place
to get the denomination is from the state in exchange for goods and services

~~~
sparkie
The monopoly includes laws around legal tender, which of course, is government
money. The government money can be used to settle any debt - this isn't true
for other monies. This means that even if the legal tender is rapidly losing
its purchasing power and there exists a harder money which creditors would
rather receive as payment, they are forced to accept the legal tender instead.

~~~
neilwilson
"The government money can be used to settle any debt - this isn't true for
other monies."

Legal tender is often misconstrued as an argument. Legal tender laws relate to
the settlement of enforcement in courts. Nothing else.

You can require that your customer pays you in Highland Sheep if you want -
and refuse to sell anything to them unless they produce those Sheep.

However if you advance them credit (aka creating your own money) and the
customer refuses to pay in the Highland sheep denomination as they promised,
and then you go to court to enforce your contract, the court can dismiss the
case if the customer has offered "legal tender" to discharge the debt.

What legal tender laws do, in effect, is force you to peg your own currency
and your own credit advances to the denomination of the state you choose to
enforce your contracts in.

Bear in mind you can change the jurisdiction by adding a jurisdiction clause
to your contract. Even though I'm in the UK I can guarantee payment in US
dollars simply by making my contract subject to the laws of California (say).

------
gnusty_gnurc
Hayek deserves so much more recognition. Now more than ever - we need people
to understand the fundamental inadequacy of central planning.

~~~
littlestymaar
For sure, central planning is so _inadequate_. And China's economic failure
compared to liberal countries like India is a great illustration of that. Oh
wait…

(Also relevant, in the 20s and 30s, USSR came from a shithole agricultural
country with no industry, to the second biggest industrial economy of the
world).

I'm not saying that central planning is _desirable_ , but it's for sure more
than _adequate_ of your goal is development.

~~~
nickik
If you even the slighest bit of understanding of Indian history and Indian
economics calling it 'liberal' is complete nonsense.

After WW2 India adopted a diliberatly socialst agenda, often called Indian
Socialism the was all about top down managment of all markets with heavy
government guidence and intervention. This concept was popular in pre-WW2
British Socialism and India served as a huge experiment. While some of this
has been removed you can still see it all over Indias economic policies today.
India is still a far, far away from any sort of free market economy or liberal
political order.

> (Also relevant, in the 20s and 30s, USSR came from a shithole agricultural
> country with no industry, to the second biggest industrial economy of the
> world).

Its is another bunch of nonsense socialist myth making. The trope of Imperial
Russia being a backwards shithole then as soon as Soviets take over its some
paradise is nothing but Communist propaganda.

In fact before WW1 Russia was one of the fasted growing nations, that itself
was one of the reasons for WW1 as the Germans realized that within a
generation Russia would probebly match or be more powerful then them.

If you look at Russia WW1 economy, you will see that in terms of manufacturing
it actually performed incredibly well. They had a problem with food
distriubtion and political authority, more then with production. The Imperial
Russian economy was already one of the biggest industrial countries by a lot
of different measures. This is clearly confirmed when you look at the weapons
output during WW1.

In the 20s Soviet economy first of all starved millions of people and only by
the end of the 20s did they reach pre-war levels of output.

From 1928 they started collectivisation and even more agressive
industrialisation, but it should be noted that it required millions of people
dead, many more millions put into forced labor and massive starvation of the
whole population to export grain and thus import pretty much everything from
the West.

To make a point of this, the Soviets literally copied US and German factories
and payed tons of money for them and then used lots of forced labor to build
them. Putting that as some great success of centralised planning is dubious to
me.

And this great plan also didn't lead to much improvment for the actual people,
it was primarly about the production of military equipment.

~~~
C1sc0cat
Yes Russia was growing fast but from a low base but the handling of this
growth was totally botched.

And pre and pots ww1 arms production was not massive Russia was buying massive
amounts of guns from the USA and look at the performance of Russia vs Japan.

~~~
nickik
So Imperial Russia was bad because it grew fast from a low base. But the
Soivet Union is great because it grew fast from a low base. Makes total sense.

> And pre and pots ww1 arms production was not massive Russia was buying
> massive amounts of guns from the USA and look at the performance of Russia
> vs Japan.

Russia did produce a large amount of war material and every academic source
agrees on this.

Military production certaintly wasn't the issue in that war. That war more
then anything else shows the weakness of the political system that was again
evident in WW1.

~~~
C1sc0cat
They where buying lever action Winchesters off the USA - not normally a sign
that your military production is up to providing what you need

~~~
nickik
Wow rifles. Clearly the most modern kind of weapon in WW1.

Russia had a gigantic army, rifles are a simple mass market commodity the the
US was selling cheaply on mass. Simply sensible to buy some when there are so
many other important things that you need to produce. Rifles are very small
part of the overall military economy.

It starts with raw resources like steal, coal and everything you need to make
explosives. Munitions production, heavy artillery and so on. Railroads, planes
and so on.

Again, scholars pretty much agree on the success of Russia military economy.
Compared to the state in the beginning of the war they did incredibly well.

Check out this serious of 24 lectures that goes a bit into technology and so
on, the last couple are about the time we are talking about:

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEETkM6vwQPHJHhXinsuQ...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEETkM6vwQPHJHhXinsuQN7jahEjbUPPY)

~~~
C1sc0cat
Winchester lever actions where second tier rifles at that point not Lee
Enfield's. Gewehr 98 and so on and used different cartridges

Having to buy basic stuff like that on the open market is a sign that your in
trouble.

Wikipedia says

"With the start of World War I, production was restricted to the M1891 dragoon
and infantry models for the sake of simplicity. Due to the desperate shortage
of arms and the shortcomings of a still-developing domestic industry, the
Russian government ordered 1.5 million M1891 infantry rifles from Remington
Arms "

~~~
nickik
What is your obsession with rifles? Non of this proves anything. Is your
argument really is 'they buy some things from outside' then that applies to
every country. Russia has insane numbers of troupes that needed basic
equipment and much higher priority things they need to produce that were
actually vital to not losing the war.

This even said 'with the start of WW1' to it not even an argument about how
they did during the war.

------
dr_dshiv
Hayek was influenced by Bastiat's idea of Economic Harmony -- a story of
spontaneous order.

Also, Hayek was influenced by Henry Charles Carey, who wrote about harmony in
economics and the unity of sciences. He was Abraham Lincoln's economic advisor
and put in place "The American System".

Both theorists offer a classical middle ground between completely free trade
and government control. They identify the objective principle as harmony and
indicate the way to get there is through liberty -- and a sprinkling of
protectionism.

------
viburnum
Why is spontaneous order desirable? Pandemics are spontaneously ordered too.

IIRC, when pressed on this, Hayek resorted to a kind of crude biopolitcs --
market societies had more population growth so that made them better.

~~~
tomhoward
> Why is spontaneous order desirable? Pandemics are spontaneously ordered too.

I don't think it's a question of what is "desirable", but rather a question of
what is _inevitable_.

Sure, bacterial/viral/parasite outbreaks are part of natural systems, and have
their own spontaneous order, but the way their host systems react and respond
is also a manifestation of spontaneous order.

In modern society this is true whether we're talking about planned/centralised
economies or more laissez faire ones. I.e., even in a relatively centralised
society like China, grassroots decisions and actions still play a highly
significant role in overall activity, including in the pandemic.

It's a subject of ongoing study and debate as to the effectiveness and
efficiency of centralised attempts to control organic processes.

~~~
littlestymaar
> I don't think it's a question of what is "desirable", but rather a question
> of what is inevitable.

 _inevitable_ is a smart way of pushing something you want to happen though.
The famous quote from Margaret Thatcher “there is no alternative” is tge best
example of that.

Also, as twentieth century shown us, their is nothing really impossible for a
sufficiently motivated government, sometimes for the better but often the
worse (from “landing on the moon in a decade” to “eradicate the Jews”).

~~~
tomhoward
> _inevitable_ is a smart way of pushing something you want to happen though

Sure but that's not what I'm talking about. As I said in the comment, whether
it's Thatcheresque “market fundamentalism” or some form of extreme central
planning, there will still be a spontaneous order at the grassroots level.
Individuals and groups will always respond organically to their conditions.
The only question is how much governments can influence it, and how beneficial
are their attempts. But that doesn't change the inevitability of some form of
spontaneous order.

> [there] is nothing really impossible for a sufficiently motivated government

Programs like the "war on drugs", the "war on cancer", the "war on obesity"
and the "war on terror" would suggest otherwise, and demonstrate that vast
interventions can be not only hugely wasteful but can have precisely the
opposite of the desired effect.

~~~
littlestymaar
> Programs like the "war on drugs", the "war on cancer", the "war on obesity"
> and the "war on terror" would suggest otherwise

Because declaring “war on something” isn't political action in itself, it's
electoral communication. How many times did the US government perquisionned
Ivy league colleges or trading desks to seek cocaine? Why not ? And why are
the US still cooperating with Saudis and other gulf states if they really
cared about terrorism? And for the health issue wars you mensionned, the
government has zero political will to shut down the huge agro-industrial
complex which has a big responsibility in both.

Hitler once said to somebody complaining about the inflation risk caused by
his policies: “I'm gonna send the SA in the grossery shops, and will'll see if
there is inflation”.

~~~
tomhoward
Clearly it's not true that "there is nothing really impossible for a
sufficiently motivated government". Governments can and do succeed at some
things, but the scope of things they can do without negative consequences is
very limited.

History shows that very clearly, including the examples I suggested (which as
you point out were messaging labels, but they all have had real and vast
interventions to go with them), that you attempted to refute with more
examples of government interventions playing out badly.

To be clear, I'm not any kind of anti-government anarcho-capitalist or
anything like that. I'm from Australia and am supportive of the mixed economy
we have here.

Also, please stop blithely invoking 1930-40s Germany as an example of
governments achieving intended outcomes. It's not what I come to HN for, it
makes my skin crawl, and even if you insist on a dispassionate evaluation of
that system, our ability to determine how it would have played out long term
is obviously very limited, but even then we know for sure it was horrific and
not at all the kind of thing that should be described as "desirable", which is
the very word that kicked off this subthread.

------
blockchainman
Very surprised to see F.A Hayek on HN. I would recommend the Road to Serfdom
to anyone who is interested in learning more about his viewpoint. Also reading
Thomas Sowell wouldn’t hurt either.

~~~
littlestymaar
I agree that the _Road to Serfdom_ is an interesting read. Even if you don't
share the really conservative view of the author (and the Austrian school as a
whole), it gives you the ideological background that underlied the dismantling
of the western Welfare State (which is what Hayek calls “road to serfdom”)
during the 80s and 90s.

~~~
nickik
In Raod to Sefdom Hayek acknowledges that basic welfare, health and retirment
polices are consistant with a liberal state.

What it gave a backround to was dismanteling a lot of the idioitc regulatory
structures and inflationary spending of the 1970s.

~~~
ardy42
> What it gave a backround to was dismanteling a lot of the idioitc regulatory
> structures

Guardrails are so idiotic: people are always bumping into them and getting
annoyed. It'd probably be best if we just removed most if not all of them. /s

The thing about regulations is you can always cherry-pick a couple mind-
boggling stupid ones. But then there are the ones that _look_ silly, but only
if you've never experienced or witnessed the problem they were meant to solve.

~~~
nickik
These regulations included things like monopoly in many industries, truckig,
airlines and so on. There are lots of example like this. I'm just absoulty
mindboggled by the current liberal idea of literally and regulation is always
great and any removal of any regulation always responsable for the next
crisis. Even saying 'deregulation' gets view on basically like saying that you
are a neonazi.

Simularly the view that all regulation exist for a good reason is also flat-
out false. It flys directly in the face of any serious study of political
science and the formation of regulation in the real world.

~~~
ardy42
> I'm just abso[lutely] mindboggled by the current liberal idea of literally
> an[y] regulation is always great and any removal of any regulation always
> respons[i]ble for the next crisis.

> ...Sim[i]larly the view that all regulation exist for a good reason is also
> flat-out false.

You're boggling your own mind, since that's a straw man position. I made it
clear I didn't hold it ("the thing about regulations is you can always cherry-
pick a couple mind-boggling stupid ones..."), and I don't think "liberals"
hold it either.

The position I do hold is that to actually evaluate a particular regulation is
difficult and requires a lot of thought; and it's easy to to mislead someone
into taking an ignorant, broadly anti-regulation stance by cherry-picking
examples of bad ones. I've seen a lot of that, and at one time I even found
the cherry-picking persuasive.

Deregulatory zeal has a tendency of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Also, some specific cases of deregulation can merely re-introduce negative
externalities that some connected group stands to benefit from (to the
determent of the public good).

------
seibelj
_The Road to Serfdom_ should be required reading for anyone who considers
themselves a thinking person. I am a libertarian but have read a lot of
philosophy from the major thinkers who encompass all points on the political
spectrum. If you consider yourself educated and convicted in your beliefs, you
should especially focus on those who disagree with you to ensure you truly
believe in your principles.

The Austrian School of economics has a niche diehard following but I'm not
sure how seriously they can be taken for several reasons. However, I am a fan
of their opinions on "hard money", and do not like governments printing
endless "fiat" currency, which is also why I have devoted several years of my
life to cryptocurrency.

Don't dismiss Hayek out-of-hand. Give him a fair shake, even if you are on the
left.

Edit: amused by the downvoted from lurkers. People don’t like to read about
views that disagree with their own, in these monoculture times.

~~~
erostrate
Couldn't agree more, as someone very much on the left. I read The Road to
Serfdom and along with Smith and Basquiat it made me a libertarian early on.
Later I turned and I'm now very much on the left but still respect Hayek's
ideas and arguments.

~~~
incompatible
Libertarianism has left and right variants: the right retains private
property, and the associated government functions, while the left is also
known as anarcho-communism.

We really need special economic zones for experimenting with alternative
economic and social systems. Unfortunately, the tradition has been to have a
single system for an entire country, and if not all people want it, too bad.

~~~
SllX
So a little SEZ if you want to experience what it was like to live under the
Divine Right of Kings and its associated aristocracy and serfdom[1][2], a
little SEZ if you want to experience Christian theocracy[3][4], a little SEZ
if you want to experience a degenerate lawless unproductive commune without
domestic agriculture[5], and a little SEZ if you want to live free[6]?

States don’t exist in a vacuum. We’re constantly experimenting as it is, if
you want to call politics experimenting, and every new law or ordinance
passed, every new executive order issued, every new opinion written by the
courts and every new verdict reached by a Jury changes the “system” a little.
You could call it the ultimate experiment in reflective social programming if
you want to get nerdy about it, but I wouldn’t use such terms myself.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone)

[6]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project)

~~~
incompatible
Pretty much. Some of these would probably turn out to be more popular than
others. It would be contradictory for libertarians to try to impose their
systems on others against their will. But given the unpopularity of
libertarian parties in elections, libertarianism is unlikely to be
implemented, even on an experimental basis. What finished off the 1930s
anarchists in Spain? It's not a very well-run economic experiment when it's
shut down by Marxists and Fascists. A bit more tolerance would be helpful.

~~~
SllX
I paid minimal attention to the Libertarian Party nomination debates, but from
what I heard when Justin Amash briefly considered running for President as a
Libertarian, the debates within the Party were centered around running to win
versus just trying to influence the direction of the Overton window. I suspect
Amash chose not to proceed because he realized that the Libertarian Party
while not without worth, does not have the killer instinct to actually win
elections and that will forever hamper their effectiveness. Amash wanted to
_win_.

I have strong libertarian sympathies, but the reason I’m not a full throated
libertarian is that it isn’t an ideology that effectively seeks to acquire
power, and without being able to win elections, they can never pave the way
for the society they seek, nor would it be able to withstand aggressive
neighbors or slight changes in values across the community. A libertarian
state is transient at best.

I also don’t want to prop up SEZs that would massively violate peoples’
natural rights for the sake of experimentation. Freedom is without Kings or
Serfs or Slaves.

------
bsenftner
Friedrich Hayek is a Republican poster boy. There is no way to have an
objecting conversation about Hayek in the United States, as his reputation has
reached god-like status among the "free independent thinkers".

~~~
anm89
What a brilliant critique...

~~~
bsenftner
Not a critique, just pointing out discussion of his ideas is not possible in
the States due to irrational elevation of Hayek by Conservatives.

