A Spontaneous Order for Europe? Why Hayek's Libertarianism is Not the Right Way Forward for European Private Law

M. Hesselink
{"title":"A Spontaneous Order for Europe? Why Hayek's Libertarianism is Not the Right Way Forward for European Private Law","authors":"M. Hesselink","doi":"10.4337/9781849805391.00012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It has been suggested recently by several scholars that the ideas of Friedrich von Hayek should play a prominent role in shaping the future of European private law. This paper examines what we can learn from Hayek for the further development of European contract law. Hayek rightly underlines that law is a contingent phenomenon, historically grown in response to needs of a specific society. This means that we should be suspicious of universalism and strong functionalism (related to strong pragmatism). Whatever the future of European contract law should look like, it would be wrong to think that we could start designing it with a clean slate. Therefore, the drafters of the CFR have been rightly inspired by the existing national, European and international traditions. One of the most fundamental insights from Hayek's work (already centrally present in The Road to Serfdom) is that of our incurable ignorance and its implications for the limits of central planning. This insight certainly also affects private law although not necessarily in the ways suggested by some of his contemporary followers. Also, Hayek's warnings against nationalism are still most relevant today. Finally, he rightly reminds us that we should not be unduly impressed by the scientism of the economic analysis of law that is based on the illusion that welfare consequences for individuals of legal rules, including those of the consumer acquis or the CFR, can be measured and compared. What we should certainly reject, however, is Hayek's totalitarianism. His all or nothing approach has no empirical basis; it is completely detached from reality. The implication is dramatic. If the only argument for a spontaneous order is that it will save us from totalitarianism then there is little reason to adopt Hayek's spontaneous order. A mixed economy of the kind that we are familiar with in Europe is much more attractive. However, as Posner has pointed out, on the crucial question of what would be the right mix Hayek had hardly anything to say, and he also uttered precious little on the kind of contract law (how much freedom?) such an economy would need. Therefore, a democratically designed contract law drawn up by a legislator inspired by the private laws in Europe as they have grown organically, but making its own choices on the issues that it deems socially most important, seems to be a much better way forward for Europe than a spontaneous order.","PeriodicalId":397807,"journal":{"name":"Political Theory: History of Political Thought eJournal","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Theory: History of Political Thought eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805391.00012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

It has been suggested recently by several scholars that the ideas of Friedrich von Hayek should play a prominent role in shaping the future of European private law. This paper examines what we can learn from Hayek for the further development of European contract law. Hayek rightly underlines that law is a contingent phenomenon, historically grown in response to needs of a specific society. This means that we should be suspicious of universalism and strong functionalism (related to strong pragmatism). Whatever the future of European contract law should look like, it would be wrong to think that we could start designing it with a clean slate. Therefore, the drafters of the CFR have been rightly inspired by the existing national, European and international traditions. One of the most fundamental insights from Hayek's work (already centrally present in The Road to Serfdom) is that of our incurable ignorance and its implications for the limits of central planning. This insight certainly also affects private law although not necessarily in the ways suggested by some of his contemporary followers. Also, Hayek's warnings against nationalism are still most relevant today. Finally, he rightly reminds us that we should not be unduly impressed by the scientism of the economic analysis of law that is based on the illusion that welfare consequences for individuals of legal rules, including those of the consumer acquis or the CFR, can be measured and compared. What we should certainly reject, however, is Hayek's totalitarianism. His all or nothing approach has no empirical basis; it is completely detached from reality. The implication is dramatic. If the only argument for a spontaneous order is that it will save us from totalitarianism then there is little reason to adopt Hayek's spontaneous order. A mixed economy of the kind that we are familiar with in Europe is much more attractive. However, as Posner has pointed out, on the crucial question of what would be the right mix Hayek had hardly anything to say, and he also uttered precious little on the kind of contract law (how much freedom?) such an economy would need. Therefore, a democratically designed contract law drawn up by a legislator inspired by the private laws in Europe as they have grown organically, but making its own choices on the issues that it deems socially most important, seems to be a much better way forward for Europe than a spontaneous order.
欧洲的自发秩序?为什么哈耶克的自由意志主义不是欧洲私法的正确发展方向
最近,一些学者提出,弗里德里希·冯·哈耶克的思想应该在塑造欧洲私法的未来方面发挥突出作用。本文考察了哈耶克对欧洲合同法的进一步发展有何启示。哈耶克正确地强调,法律是一种偶然现象,在历史上是根据特定社会的需要而发展起来的。这意味着我们应该对普遍主义和强功能主义(与强实用主义有关)持怀疑态度。无论欧洲合同法的未来应该是什么样子,认为我们可以从头开始设计它的想法都是错误的。因此,CFR的起草者正确地受到了现有的国家、欧洲和国际传统的启发。哈耶克作品中最基本的见解之一(已经在《通往奴役之路》中集中体现)是我们无法治愈的无知及其对中央计划的局限性的暗示。这种见解当然也影响了私法,尽管不一定是以他同时代的追随者所建议的方式。此外,哈耶克对民族主义的警告在今天仍然最有意义。最后,他正确地提醒我们,我们不应该过分地被法律经济分析的科学主义所打动,这种分析是基于一种错觉,即法律规则对个人的福利后果,包括消费者获取或CFR,是可以衡量和比较的。然而,我们当然应该拒绝的是哈耶克的极权主义。他的要么全有要么全无的方法没有经验基础;它完全脱离了现实。其含义是戏剧性的。如果支持自发秩序的唯一理由是它将把我们从极权主义中拯救出来,那么就没有什么理由采纳哈耶克的自发秩序。我们在欧洲熟悉的那种混合经济更具吸引力。然而,正如波斯纳所指出的那样,在什么是正确的混合这一关键问题上,哈耶克几乎没有什么可说的,他也很少谈到这样一种经济需要什么样的合同法(多少自由?)。因此,在欧洲私法有机发展的过程中,立法者受其启发,制定一种民主设计的合同法,但在其认为最重要的社会问题上做出自己的选择,似乎是欧洲比自发秩序更好的前进道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书