Narratives for the 'libertarians' vs. 'progressives' of 'radicals' vs. 'libertarians' dispute need stand in exemplars (or heros and villains). A leading figure in these narratives continues to be Friedrich Hayek, and often his books _The Road to Serfdom_ and _The Constitution of Liberty_. (See, e.g. the recent work of Dionne, Brinkley, Gottgfried, Hirschman, Roemer, etc.) The New York Public Library has recently listed Hayek's _TRtoS_ as among the most influential books of the century, so perhaps this is not surprising. But in many ways these narrative accounts are built on an illusion, and this may be as good a place as any to do a bit of de-bunking so that radical economists providing a narrative of 'libertarians' vs. 'radicals' will engaging actual positions, and not dueling with bogus myths. The straight dope is that Hayek (the founder of the dreaded Mont Pelerin Society) in his _TRtoS_ and in his _TCofL_ attacks laissez faire, and embraces regulation and the welfare state. As I write in my recent HES conference paper: "In his _The Road to Serdom_, Hayek advocates 'the substitution of direct regulation by authority' in situations where market competition cannot be made effective. He also advocates government involvement to provide services in situations were great advantage to society would be forthcoming, but where no profit would come to those providing the service if done so privately. Hayek approves of supplying a basic safety net of food, shelter, clothing, and health care, and makes room for a comprehensive government sytem of health, accident, and old age insurance. He also allows for government assistance to the victims of natural disasters. He advocates imporved planning of the framework of market competition, attacks the 'wooden' rules of 19th century 'laissez faire' as dogmatic and completely inadequate, ans supports regularty protection against monopolies, environmetnal polution, and resource depletion. Finally, Hayek repeats again and again that an intelligently worked out program of regulation and welfare would do nothing to endanger the general liberty of the society. That is, implementing reforms of this kind pose no threat to plunging us into a new slavery. Hayek reprises the same themes again in his _The Constitution of Liberty_, this time going into greater detail, allowing for a legitimate role of government in such activities as natural resource regulation, education, safetly regulations, nature preserves, city sanitation, standards of weights and measures, and the governmental supply of information in the field of health, geography, etc. MISCONCEPTION: The false claim is repeatedly made that Hayek rejected all forms of state regulation, welfare provision, or institutional reform. It is also constantly claimed that Hayek advocated returning to the regulartory and welfare practices of mid-19th century laissez faire. Often these claims are combined with the equally false claim that Hayek viewed any form of government regulation, welfare provision, or institutional reform as necessarily negative and the first ste in an inevitable path toward a totalitarian state." My footnotes the site as examples of these false claims the writings of Hirschman, Arrow, Galbraith, Stigler, Buchanan, Samuelson, Olson, Dionne, and Gottfried. No doubt the list could be extended almost indefinately. My footnotes to Hayek's attacks on laissez faire and his embrace of regulation and the welfare state are hayek, 1944, 17-18, 37-40, 80-81, 120-12, Hayek, 1960, 222-225, 231, 257, 369-371. Lets leave the mythmaking to Oliver Stone. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside [EMAIL PROTECTED] --JAA05274.837275900/click.ucr.edu--
