Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: I argue that the classical liberal institution of the private sphere is supported by evidence from evolutionary theory. I look at Smith and Hayek's formulations of the private sphere, showing how evolutionary theory and evidence from human nature supports a private sphere. Finally, I reveal the connection between rule of law, private property and the private sphere. Throughout these varied discussions, I discuss the idea of rights as a way of formalizing a private sphere, while bringing to light some of the difficulties inherent in rights language, and laying out a definition of rights that is consistent with classical liberalism and which takes its bearing from the “natural conventionalism” that runs throughout classical liberal thought.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: It is surprising that political theorists have yet to carefully compare the political philosophical approaches of John Dewey and Friedrich Hayek. Both thinkers enjoyed enormous stature in twentieth-century political philosophy and both were influential on actual political policy. At first glance, there may seem a good reason for this lack of comparative research in that each thinker appears to have endorsed political policies strongly criticized by the other. Dewey is often connected to both Old Left labor politics (by Richard Rorty) and New Left participatory politics (by Robert Westbrook) while Hayek was decisively articulated to the politics of the New Reagan Right (by Milton Friedman). But such a caricatured left-versus-right contrast neglects important points of convergence between the two. Exploring these resonances enables us to extend the work of both in innovative directions and also provides a better understanding of the remaining differences separating the two. I here argue that there is an important philosophical affinity between Dewey’s pragmatist view of politics and Hayek’s praxeological Scottish enlightenment approach. Hayek began with the idea that complex social interaction is usually the result of human action but not of human design. Dewey similarly situated his political thought around the idea that intersubjectivity, not subjectivity, is the starting point of human sociality. This shows that both issued important critiques of the subject-centered rationalism typical of much modern philosophy and political theory. Acknowledging this point of resonance makes it possible to explore ways in which Hayek’s thought resonates with crucial aspects of leftist politics and ways in which Dewey’s politics profitably intersects with market-based strategies which leftists too often ignore at their peril. It also illuminates remaining disagreements between Dewey and Hayek regarding the relation between politics and ethics. For Dewey, democracy was a thoroughly ethical ideal. He thought this an implication of the shift from rationalism to pragmatism. For Hayek, the same shift meant that we could abstract politics from ethics in order to make room for the invisible hand. The divide between Dewey and Hayek on this point reflects a crucial tension in twentieth-century political thought. As such, Dewey and Hayek are importantly representative of debates central for contemporary political theory.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper argues that the similarities between Aristotle's polity and Hayek's Great Society are important for understanding the different bases for free society. The major differences between the two authors can be traced back to their differing conceptions of nature and, therefore, of virtue. However, I argue that despite very different foundations, both Aristotle and Hayek end up with very similar proposals for answering the question of the best way to live.