Reply to Gus diZerega.

• Author: Sandefur, Timothy
• Position: CONTROVERSY

The thesis of "Some Problems with Spontaneous Order" is that there is no principled distinction between spontaneous and constructed orders--indeed, that spontaneous orders incorporate constructed orders and vice versa so that whatever import spontaneous order may have as a descriptive matter, it can provide no foundation for a normative critique of constructivism. Although the most obvious basis for such a critique would be to draw a line between the two at the level of coercion, doing so would make Hayek's approach a critique of coercion, and then that critique would have to be made on the basis of philosophical values exogenous to the spontaneous order itself, which would smack of contructivism. Hayek was more interested in employing values that allegedly bubble up from the order itself, but this effort is unconvincing because it forces one either into the Panglossian fallacy or into asserting ethical commitments with no basis at all.

I did not intend to deny that there are spontaneous orders, but to contend that, put simply, if you scratch a spontaneous order, you find constructivism, and vice versa. Consider the Constitution example. Gus diZerega writes that the Constitution "established goal-neutral procedures by which anyone may seek a political goal." But this claim is not true--the Constitution is anything but "goal neutral." It is infused with norms, from its assertion that liberty is a "blessing" to its prohibition on ex post facto laws, and it places severe restrictions on the goals that may be pursued and how they may be pursued. Although the Constitution may set up a framework for various spontaneous processes, it is not...