Coercion, Freedom, and Democracy in Hayek, Dewey, and Commons

Abstract

This article examines the conflict between Frederick A. Hayek’s ideas about freedom, coercion, and democracy and those of John R. Commons and John Dewey. It starts with Hayek’s attacks on Dewey and Commons, summarizes their positions on freedom, coercion, and democracy, contrasts their views on social justice, and ends with the objections that Dewey and Commons might lodge against Hayek. The article concludes that they held different beliefs about power in capitalist democracies. Dewey and Commons were concerned about the consequences of corporate power and Hayek about the political power of majorities and legislatures. Hayek proposed limiting with abstract laws the rights of voters and the discretion of legislators. Commons and Dewey proposed policies designed to increase participation, deliberation, inquiry, and intelligence in public affairs.

Keywords:

• capitalism
• institutions
• public policy
• philosophy

JEL Classification Codes:

• B25
• I38
• J88
• H10
• K19

Notes

1 For Friedrich Hayek’s economics see Andrew Farrant and Edward McPhail (2009 and 2010) and Samuel Bowles, Alan Kirman, and Rajiv Sethi (2017).

2 Jacob Viner (1961, 232–233) accuses Hayek of avoiding the unsettled debate between law and discretion. Jeffrey Friedman (2013, 297) relates Hayek’s “spontaneous order” to his goal of countering socialism. Planning is unnecessary because the “spontaneous order” does a better job. Hayek’s colleague, Lionel Robbins, praises the notion as liberal, but adds “it is liable to become the foundation of an illiberal mysticism” (Robbins 1961, 71). Scheuermann (1997) claims that Hayek took this notion from the Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt and that “the reader will look in vain through Schmitt’s writings for an adequately precise conception of the generality of law.”

3 Viktor Vanberg (1996) criticizes Hayek’s cultural evolution from a public choice perspective. Richard Vernon (1976) comments “that to the extent that Hayek’s ‘spontaneous order’ ever existed it was brought into being by public policy and by coercive means.”

4 For a treatment of Charles Peirce’s abduction, see Manuel Ramon Souza Luz (2017). For John Dewey’s methodology, see James Webb (2005 and 2007).

5 Alan Ryan (1995) covers Dewey’s political activities. Mark Lutz and Kenneth Lux (1979) work out the economic consequences of an ethic of self-realization, building their case, not on Dewey, but on Abraham Maslow’s need hierarchy. More recently Laure Bazzoli and Véronique Dutraive (2019) relate Dewey’s economic theories to original institutionalism.

6 The amendments gave citizens the right to sue governments in the courts. See Eric Foner (2019, 21–54). Each amendment contains a final section reading “Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Congress passed Civil Rights Acts in 1875, 1957, and 1964. Only in 1964 did Congress start to undo decades of voter suppression.

7 Hayek (1960, 42) also cites an article that Dewey (1916) wrote while trying to decide whether to support Wilson on World War I and how to deal with Leo Tolstoy’s absolute non-violence. Dewey was suspicious of all absolute positions including Tolstoy’s. For a fuller treatment see Roudy Hildreth (2009, 787).

8 John Rawls (1999) cannot be avoided here. Hayek maintains that Rawls agreed with him on the meaning of social justice, that people who drew “socialist” conclusions from Rawls were mistaken (Hayek 1973–1979, 1: 170, 2: 100, 183). Herbert Lister (2011) seems to agree with Hayek. Archival investigations of Rawls’s papers reveal that he studied Dewey extensively early in his career, that he accepts Dewey’s criticism of Kant’s dualism, but that he finds Dewey’s experimental ethics inadequate (Botti 2017).

9 For an extended treatment of this failure of the courts see William Forbath (1991). Jacob Viner (1961, 235) comments on Hayek’s inconsistency in defending freedom of association for corporations, but not for unions.

10 For a similar contemporary analysis, see David Weil (2014, 179).

11 Commons recognizes that unions could abuse their power (Commons and Harriman 1916, 209) and that they can become corrupt (Commons 1950, 263). He always assumed that human organizations are imperfect.

12 Paul Samuelson uses the Nordic countries to test Hayek’s warnings in the Road to Serfdom (Farrant and McPhail 2009). Samuel Bowles, Alan Kirman, and Rajiv Sethi (2017, 226) note that “on measures of democracy, civil liberties and innovativeness developed by the World Bank, Freedom House, and Bloomberg, the Nordic countries do slightly better than laissez-faire countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

J. Dennis Chasse

J. Dennis Chasse is a retired economics professor from SUNY Brockport. He is grateful for the comments of three referees which significantly improved the article.