Hayek on the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution

I believe that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is wonderful. The first of the 10 amendments (which together are known as the Bill of Rights) the full text reads–

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

I find the phrasing simply beautiful — concise and to the point. In a discussion with James Buchanan in 1978, Friedrich Hayek said–

I think the phrase ought to read, “Congress should make no law authorizing government to take any discriminatory measures of coercion.”  I think this would make all the other rights unnecessary and create the sort of conditions which I want to see.

That’s brilliantly put. The government must be even-handed. It must be prohibited from discriminating among citizens. That is missing in India. The lack of that prohibition is the root cause of practically all of India’s ills.

NOTES:

[1] For a good introduction to the 1st Amendment, see Cornell Law School’s explanation, the overview of which I quote below:

First Amendment: An Overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

 

Democracy, Freedom and Independence

The words democracy, independence and freedom are frequently used carelessly without a clear understanding of the fundamental conceptual difference between them. They are in fact orthogonal even though they are sometimes correlated. Independence and freedom are used interchangeably, and democracy is automatically assumed to imply independence and freedom. That’s confused and wrong.

You do have states that are independent, and in which the citizens enjoy economic, civic and democratic political freedoms. But that’s not the only choice: you could have states in which citizens have economic freedom but are not independent; you could have independent states in which citizens have democratic political freedom but little economic freedom; you could also have states in which citizens lack political freedom but have economic and civic freedom; and so on. Continue reading “Democracy, Freedom and Independence”

Happy Birthday, Adam Smith

Born 16th June, 1743, Adam Smith was one of the greatest minds of the Scottish Enlightenment. He is regarded by many to be the “Father of Economics”, and deservedly so. His book, An Inquiry in the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published in that miraculous year 1776, set the theoretical foundations of free markets.

Economics is a branch of moral philosophy. Smith’s other book, published in 1759, is The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Here are a few quotes from the two books. Continue reading “Happy Birthday, Adam Smith”

AMA — the Milton Friedman edition

Well, you have to admit that Milton Friedman was the nicest, most gentlemanly economist ever. Even when heckled by his student audience, his smile always accompanied his razor-sharp wit and wisdom. Here’s a sample:

Ask me anything. Maybe I’ll smile. Or maybe not.

Hayek: Between Instinct and Reason

Economics has from its origins been concerned with how an extended order of human interaction comes into existence through a process of variation, winnowing and sifting far surpassing our vision or our capacity to design. Adam Smith was the first to perceive that we have stumbled upon methods of ordering human economic cooperation that exceed the limits of our knowledge and perception. … We are led — for example by the pricing system in market exchange — to do things by circumstances of which we are largely unaware and which produce results that we do not intend. In our economic activities we do not know the needs which we satisfy nor the sources of the things which we get. Almost all of us serve people whom we do not know, and even of whose existence we are ignorant; and we in turn constantly live on the services of other people of whom we know nothing. All this is possible because we stand in a great framework of institutions and traditions – economic, legal, and moral – into which we fit ourselves by obeying certain rules of conduct that we never made, and which we have never understood in the sense in which we understand how the things that we manufacture function.

Modern economics explains how such an extended order can come into being, and how it itself constitutes an information-gathering process, able to call up, and to put to use, widely dispersed information that no central planning agency, let alone any individual, could know as a whole, possess or control. Man’s knowledge, as Smith knew, is dispersed.

[Except from The Fatal Conceit (1988) by F. A. Hayek. pg 14]

From the archives: The Sacred Ritual of Elections

Change is not something that arises out of random chance. If the underlying factors that motivate the electorate don’t change, the outcome will be the same. If party A promoted a certain set of policies as a result of a set of constraints, another party B will have to also adopt the same or a very similar set of policies as well. Why? Because the underlying reality is the same. Continue reading “From the archives: The Sacred Ritual of Elections”

Cities, Transportation and Labor Market Mobility

As regular readers of this blog know, I believe that cities are the engines of progress. I am bigly into urbanization. I am delighted that Russ Roberts has interviewed urbanist Alain Bertaud of NYU on EconTalk.

I loved listening to that podcast. (I highly recommend Russ’s pocasts.) I am looking forward to reading Bertaud’s book “Order Without Design: How markets shape cities”.

An excerpt from the book by Alain Bertaud below the fold. Continue reading “Cities, Transportation and Labor Market Mobility”

India, China and the US trade numbers

“As per a study by the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, India’s global merchandise exports for 2018 were $324.7 billion, of which $51.4 billion were to the US.” [Source: Donald Trump terminates preferential trade status for India under GSP.]

“China has a $700 billion trade relationship with the U.S., including imports and exports, but it has a $3 trillion trade relationship with the rest of the world.” [Source: Protectionism Is Iatrogenic Government.] Continue reading “India, China and the US trade numbers”

Public Choice Theory and Behavioral Symmetry

One major premise of public choice theory is “behavioral symmetry”.

People act in their self-interest. They do what they believe will get them the most bang for the buck for themselves and their loved ones. This they do in the private sphere, such as in the supermarket.

Behavioral symmetry posits that when people act in the public sphere — as voters, politicians, bureaucrats — they also act in their self-interest. They don’t get transformed into other-directed, selfless beings capable of discovering what is true, beautiful and act solely in the interest of the “common good.” Continue reading “Public Choice Theory and Behavioral Symmetry”

With love, to my Leftist, “Secular” Friends

It’s deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra observed. We’ve seen this play before. Not once but all throughout human history.

The pendulum swings. Instead of introspection and looking into the mirror, the breast-beating, hand-wringing crowd of ignoramuses can’t — or worse won’t — read the writing on the wall. But that’s par for the course for the leftists and “secularists”, the people that this piece is addressed to.

Five years ago, in May 2014, I had tweeted, “Will @narendramodi be PM for the next 5 years? Absolutely not. He will be PM for the next 15 years. Get used to it.” It was a bold expression of hope that Modi will bring about structural changes in the economy and the governance of India, and that will ensure his continued leadership. Continue reading “With love, to my Leftist, “Secular” Friends”