I’ve been working very hard on many diverse projects—more than two dozen! One of these projects is to start making my way through the writings of friends and colleagues, and to highlight them on my blog. Australian economist Winton Bates is one of those friends and colleagues and I have very much enjoyed his posts on his Freedom and Flourishing blog. Winton has been blogging since 2008, and is the author of a fine 2021 book, Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing. I’ve also had the pleasure to work with Winton, when he contributed an article (“Flourishing in a Risky World”) to the December 2021 issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
This past May, in The Savvy Street, Winton published a comprehensive discussion of the work of another friend of mine, Ed Younkins. That essay, “The Vision of Ed Younkins’s Trilogy on Freedom and Flourishing,” discusses Ed’s three major books on the subject: Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise (2002); Champions of a Free Society: Ideas of Capitalism’s Philosophers and Economists (2008); and Flourishing and Happiness in a Free Society: Toward a Synthesis of Aristotelianism, Austrian Economics, and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (2011)—all interesting and provocative books not only as works unto themselves but in their interrelationships.
Recently, Winton published two thoughtful essays on the differences between Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand: “Did Hayek acknowledge the importance of individual self-direction in his vision of spontaneous order?” (May 21) and today’s “How different were the views of Hayek and Rand on the role of reason?” I am particularly pleased with Winton’s citation of my own work on these thinkers, especially regarding the parallels to be found in their critiques of certain forms of constructivist rationalist thinking. I especially like the way Winton draws lessons from each tradition, while distancing himself from the weaknesses he sees in each. He writes:
The views that Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek held about the role of reason are not as far apart as I had thought them to be prior to reading Chris Sciabarra’s book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. Rand was more optimistic than Hayek about the role of reason in enabling improvements in cultural values but they both recognized that individuals may have good reasons to question the dominant culture in which they live. Sciabarra argues that Rand’s intellectual allies would agree with Hayek’s denunciation of the constructivist rationalism of those who believe they knew enough about human nature to plan a perfect society. Rand’s allies also condemn rationalists for ascribing to humans the attributes of an omniscient deity. In my view, the most significant difference between the views of Rand and Hayek concerns the desirability of articulation of reasons for adherence to moral rules. I agree with Rand on that point. Despite my disagreements with some of the views of both Rand and Hayek on the role of reason, I agree with what I see as the central elements of their views on this topic. I strongly support Rand’s view that it is necessary for individuals to have an articulated philosophy if they are to live efficaciously, and I strongly support Hayek’s denunciation of constructivist rationalism.
I’ve enjoyed Winton’s blog and highly recommend it!
Notablog 