The belief one had to justify freedom was common in the 1940s, and even later. I am not arguing Hayek was perfect, but I do like to keep the context of when he was writing. The same with discussions about religion. In the 21st century it is easy to asset things which were not obvious even 2 or 3 hundred years ago. Hayek was a step forward, his greatness, such as it was, was not that he said the last word on the subject but that he was among the few saying the first words.

there are a few areas to be critical of Rand in. Evolution for one. but you do realize this is an Objectivist site, right? people are going to be making Objectivist arguments. That does not mean they do not read whole bodies of work from other scholars and scientists. You've decided to start making jokes in a seriously presented post. make arguments instead.

What he said is his understanding of Hayek position was shaped by other people. Either way Binswanger was right. Hayek was anti-reason and a moral relativist.

Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls ―"constructive rationalism.” This puts Hayek up there with Kant and Hume.

“―no universally valid system of ethics can ever be known to us.” Hayek

This shows that Hayek is a moral relativist.

“―[M]orals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man‘s reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution.” Hayek

This is an attack on both reason and ethics.

“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty” Hayek

This shows that Hayek does not think Freedom is valuable, it's tolerated because it results in economic efficiency.

When they come from the government, systems don't work, and plans don't work. A political phrase you hear time and again from politicians is, "I have a plan." They should tack "That never works" on to that phrase. People left to their own devices without any plan at all, will solve the problem and be up and running before government can implement any plan. Do you need any examples? See Stossel's program of yesterday on FOX.

Could it be the discussion here is misdirected by reason of a misunderstanding of what Hayek was trying to communicate? One cannot, as Rand properly said, drop the context. Hayek was pro freedom, and if it takes a slightly different argument to explain things to a statist, I see nothing wrong with it. But one cannot extrapolate this into his entire outlook.

no. Rand would want you to decide for yourself, based on reason. if someone tells you that knowledge cannot be gained by reason and that all knowledge is held in some sort of cultural sense, I think you'd be disgusted. But because he wrote one book that is somewhat free-market, you are willing to overlook his thoughts on anti-science, anti-reason, and moral relativism. You are not responding to his exact words presented in this discussion. Words have meaning.

maybe hayak should have lived in a world where freedom was unnecessary.

Rand did, I believe. My info on Binswanger is he says so in his article.

I think saying there is no logically valid ethical system is more than minor mistakes or lack of clarity. No one is saying that everything Rand wrote is perfect. Hayek openly argued against using reason as a valid way of gaining knowledge. you spend quite a bit of time in here arguing for reason.

what is your evidence to suggest that Binswanger and Rand did not read Hayek? I think people are mis-interpreting his remarks regarding how he shaped his arguments. He had discussions with Austrian intellectuals and shaped his arguments from those discussions. Db is quoting Hayek and has read extensively the subject matter. These arguments are relevant to this group, because Rand made a moral case for capitalism based on reason. Hayek rejects reason. Shortcuts and removing reason as justification for concepts gets you to people making cases against intellectual property for example.

No Hayek is not misinterpreted.

Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls ―"constructive rationalism.” This puts Hayek up there with Kant and Hume.

“―no universally valid system of ethics can ever be known to us.” Hayek

This shows that Hayek is a moral relativist.

“―[M]orals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man‘s reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution.” Hayek

This is an attack on both reason and ethics.

“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty” Hayek

This shows that Hayek does not think Freedom is valuable, it's tolerated because it results in economic efficiency.

Thanks for those references, db.
As posted yesterday I have a digital copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty that contained the text critiqued in the article. I am already reading that one. There were ~17 years of observation for Hayek between "Road" and "Constitution."

Hayek did not write about this in the Road To Serfdom book. Here are some of references
Friedrich A. Hayek, Rules and Order, Volume 1 of Law, Legislation and Liberty: A
New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy (New York:
Routledge, 1973), pp. 9-10; Friedrich A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of
Socialism (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 61-62.
3 Hayek, Fatal Conceit, p. 20

why would there be little case for liberty? why? this is the fallacious argument regarding perfect knowledge. This is a religious argument. Rand makes a case for freedom based on the nature of man. that's a significant difference.

"I think our time is better spent on other subjects." I think you are referring to yourself here. These are critical arguments about the moral basis for capitalism.

It is a shame Harry Binswanger (and, sadly, Rand) present opinions about people / books they proudly admit they have not read. I did not come away with the same opinion as Binswanger after reading "The Road to Serfdom" some 50 years ago (it was written in the early 1940s). My take was Hayek was giving an example, an illustration to a statist minded person who believed if one did not regulate farming everyone would grow tomato fields and we would have no wheat. He was explaining, as I grasped it, that so many decisions are required in the production of anything that no one person or group of people could do it and freedom is required. I think our time is better spent on other subjects.

When I have had time to read the entire book originally noted, then I will respond.

No Hayek is not misinterpreted.

Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls ―"constructive rationalism.” This puts Hayek up there with Kant and Hume.

“―no universally valid system of ethics can ever be known to us.” Hayek

This shows that Hayek is a moral relativist.

“―[M]orals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man‘s reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution.” Hayek

This is an attack on both reason and ethics.

“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty” Hayek

This shows that Hayek does not think Freedom is valuable, it's tolerated because it results in economic efficiency.

Fine look at Hayek's own words.

Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls ―"constructive rationalism.” This puts Hayek up there with Kant and Hume.

“―no universally valid system of ethics can ever be known to us.” Hayek

This shows that Hayek is a moral relativist.

“―[M]orals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man‘s reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution.” Hayek

This is an attack on both reason and ethics.

“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty” Hayek

This shows that Hayek does not think Freedom is valuable, it's tolerated because it results in economic efficiency.

Hey I like this discussion. Yes the quote is misinterpreted so that particular criticism of Hayek is invalid.

There is a difference between efficiency and freedom. Sweet it is when they coincide as often they do. But there are times when a choice is needed.
According to Robbie, Hayek says central control will never work, but it does work in some circumstances, and works well, then should individual choice be over-ridden?
Rand clearly says, no. Individual freedom is paramount,
Hayek says he cannot imagine how it could be (my words), so, maybe.

Aspects for more consideration- times of war, IP enforcement, net neutrality.

I don't need Binswager's opinion of Hayek. I don't need Kelley's opinon of Hayek. I can read Hayek and judge for myself without bias.

Right, his whole argument is one from a lack of the power of reason. See David Kelley's paper Rand v. Hayek. Besides this is completely consistent with the subjectivism of Von Mises