It is necessary in the first instance that the parties in the market should be free to sell at any price and buy at any price at which they can find a partner to the transaction, and that anybody should be free to produce, buy and sell anything that may be produced and sold at all.

When Hayek says "anything that may be produced and sold at all" he does not mean anything that can physically be produced or sold. He means anything that the law allows to be produced or sold. Hayek is not advocating the buying and selling or babies or body parts — that’s closer to the ‘universal commodification’ approach of Chicago School economists like Becker and Posner (Margaret Jane Radin has a good critique of that position).

Hayek goes on to explain that prohibiting "certain poisonous substances", limiting working hours and OH&S laws are perfectly consistent with his approach (p 39). As far as I can see, there’s no contradiction here. None of these things interferes with the price mechanism and the laws apply equally to everyone.

What Hayek was opposed to were attempts by governments to set prices and incomes for particular products and particular occupations. He was opposed to laws that gave members of a particular union an exclusive right to perform certain tasks.

I think Rudd has some interesting things to say about Hayek. But I also think that some of his attacks would be more effective if they directed against the right target.

Be that as it may, the salient Hayek position is his proposition: “It is necessary in the first instance that the parties in the market should be free to sell at any price and buy at any price at which they can find a partner to the transaction, and that anybody shoud be free to produce, buy and sell anything that may be produced and sold at all,” and the concomitant notion that the only form of “planning” allowed is that “required to make competition as effective and beneficial as possible”. Taking this market fundamentalism as the starting point, from the perspective of critics, every exception is a “concession”, and the pattern of his concessions varies throughout his writing, as per my point (1).

Why are they ‘concessions’? Hayek opposed inteventions that attempted to override the price mechanism but supported policies like a guaranteed minimum income, state funded education and physical infrastructure. Where’s the inconsistency?

If you want to understand Hayek you need to understand the argument in ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’. Everything else flows from that.

I do think there are tensions, inconsistencies and gaps in Hayek’s work and that Sinclair managed to ignore them in his article. That’s why it’s frustrating when so much of the criticism of Hayek misses the mark.

Might have to get Steve Waugh along for a little “team chat”.

2pp 59/41 with an ALP primary of 50%, the highest recorded by Morgan since 1986.

Unless the Sunrise factor is kicking in much more than even I would possibly imagine, I don’t believe it for a minute – even if it is the fourth poll in a row of about the same order. Still, there is one particular house over at Kirribilli where I’m sure all this is going down a real treat.

A: “Emperor Nasi Goreng … built the Wall of China …. to keep the rabbits out.”

Anyway in the spirit of practical reconciliation, I’m also pissed and I’ll also offer my apologies. Sorry about the snark, but cs, I wish you’d engage rather than dismiss. That doesn’t justify my snark thought for which I’m truly sorry.

Love and kisses

Your Kimberella

Comment all you like Mark. By all means

Thanks for the permission, cs.

Just sayin…

I trust I am also free to say I think you are wrong, in this case, dead wrong.

Oh, most certainly. If you could provide some argument as to why, as opposed to assertion, I’d be delighted to revise my view in light of it. As I’ve said, I hope Rudd is all that you say he is. I’m not convinced yet.

Can we go back to talking about breakfast television, please?

Heh.

(commenting about politics on a blog at 11pm on a friday night — instant forsaking of the right to talk about what normal people think about politics? Discuss.)

However, when you have been a minder to the Labor leader who broke national party rule in Qld

Mark was offered a job as a political advisor in Goss’ office in 1991. Despite the fact that he was then living on Austudy and the pay package was 60 grand, he knocked it back because of his disagreement on principle with some aspects of Goss’ policy. I suppose he shouldn’t have, so he’d have been able to have arguments with cs 15 years later.

Patronising doesn’t begin to express cs’ problems with anyone who disagrees with him on Rudd, evidently.

But cs will ask me if I’m channelling Tim Blair, and therefore none of you esteemed strategists and political advisors and Mandarin speakers and margin increasers should take any notice of this comment.

Is that a new lip piercing Mark? Or just the hook cs baited for you?

I’ve found your comments patronising and insulting personally.

I’m happy to stick to the arguments, but I don’t recognise that I don’t have anything to contribute to the debate because I’m not Kevin Rudd, or cs, so if it’s all fine with you, I’ll continue to argue the merits of the case. I’ll stay away from the meta, but I’m not going to be deterred from criticising him by some claim that I don’t have standing to do so. At any intellectual level, and by any rules of discourse, that’s absurd. People can discount what I say, and take me on on what I say, but I don’t recognise some argument from authority.

If that’s a problem for you, well, then, I’m sorry, but it’s not my problem.

And, like Kim, your advocacy for your mate isn’t doing anything to sway me, by virtue of the manner in which you couch it such that any contradiction of you is met by anything other than engagement on the arguments.

But Davidson doesn’t help readers avoid one of the major traps for the unwary — the ambiguity of the term ’social justice’. He writes:

Where Hayek and Rudd part company is in the notion of social justice. Hayek is brutal in his rejection of that principle; it is unworkable and immoral.

It’s not clear to me that Rudd and Hayek use the term in the same way. For many people, social justice is about improving the position of the worst off or showing compassion to those in need. But for Hayek it was about making the distribution of wealth and income conform to some principle like equality or merit. Hayek didn’t think that social justice was some kind of moderate correction to the excesses of the market.

Hayek acknowledged that other thinkers didn’t use the term the way he did. On page 100 of Law, Legislation and Liberty Vol 2 he says that agrees with John Rawls’ approach to justice but regrets that Rawls uses the term ’social justice’.

To see how tricky this can get, read Tory leader David Cameron’s recent speech on social welfare. He talks about delivering social justice and then adds an approving nod to Hayek.

Rudd’s interpretation of Hayek was entirely reasonable in context. There is no settled academic agreement nor authority on Hayek, and any zillion number of nit-pickers. His interpretation was well within the ballpark.

I have never said that Rudd is a “Philosopher King’

I was being sarcastic, cs.

I’m just a tad pissed off with your comment to the effect that I shouldn’t dare criticise Rudd’s strategic and communication skills because I’m some rank amateur.

As perhaps if you put yourself in my shoes, you’d understand.

Rudd is certainly an amateur when it comes to making an argument in terms of political theory.

Davidson demonstrated with reference to both Hayek and Rudd’s texts that Rudd was wrong. End of story.