Editing Friedrich Hayek (section)

==== Social safety nets ====
{{Main|Social insurance|Social safety net}}

With regard to a [[social safety net]], Hayek advocated "some provision for those threatened by the extremes of indigence or starvation due to circumstances beyond their control" and argued that the "necessity of some such arrangement in an industrial society is unquestioned—be it only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy".<ref>{{cite book|first=Friedrich|last=Hayek|editor-first=Ronald|editor-last=Hamowy|editor-link=Ronald Hamowy|title=The Constitution of Liberty|publisher=University of Chicago Press|place=Chicago|edition=Definitive|year=2011|page=405|orig-date=1960|isbn=978-0-226-31539-3|title-link=The Constitution of Liberty}}</ref> Summarizing Hayek's views on the topic, journalist [[Nicholas Wapshott]] has argued that "[Hayek] advocated mandatory universal health care and unemployment insurance, enforced, if not directly provided, by the state".<ref>{{citation|first=Nicholas|last=Wapshott|author-link=Nicholas Wapshott|title=Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics|publisher=W.W. Norton & Co.|place=New York|year=2011|page=291}}</ref> [[Critical theory|Critical theorist]] [[Bernard Harcourt]] has argued further that "Hayek was adamant about this".<ref>{{cite news|last=Harcourt|first=Bernard|author-link=Bernard Harcourt|title=How Paul Ryan enslaves Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/12/paul-ryan-enslaves-friedrich-hayek-road-serfdom|work=The Guardian|access-date=27 December 2014|date=12 September 2012|archive-date=21 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240921023955/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/12/paul-ryan-enslaves-friedrich-hayek-road-serfdom|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1944, Hayek wrote in ''[[The Road to Serfdom]]'': {{blockquote|There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [that security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all; or more briefly, the security of a [[Guaranteed minimum income|minimum income]]] should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. There are difficult questions about the precise standard which should thus be assured... but there can be no doubt that some minimum of [[Standard of living|food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work]], can be assured to everybody. Indeed, for a considerable part of the population of [[English Poor Laws|England this sort of security has long been achieved]].
<br />Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist... individuals in providing for those [[Act of God|common hazards of life]] against which, because of their [[Knightian uncertainty|uncertainty]], few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of [[Health insurance|sickness]] and [[Accident insurance|accident]], neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance—where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the [[Social safety net|state's helping to organize a comprehensive system]] of [[social insurance]] is very strong. There are many points of detail where [[Capitalism|those wishing to preserve the competitive system]] and [[Socialism|those wishing to supersede it by something different]] will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make [[Competition (economics)|competition]] more or less effective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state's providing greater security in this way and the preservation of [[Individualism#Political individualism|individual freedom]]. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.<ref>{{Cite book|first=Friedrich|last=Hayek|editor-first=Bruce|editor-last=Caldwell|editor-link=Bruce Caldwell (economist)|title=The Road to Serfdom|publisher=University of Chicago Press|place=Chicago|edition=Definitive|year=2007|pages=[https://archive.org/details/roadtoserfdom00frie/page/147 147–148]|orig-date=1944|isbn=978-0-226-32055-7|title-link=The Road to Serfdom}}</ref>|sign=|source=}}

In 1973, Hayek reiterated in ''[[Law, Legislation and Liberty]]'': <blockquote>There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an [[Guaranteed minimum income|assured minimum income]], or a [[Universal basic income|floor below which nobody need to descend]]. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the [[Rule of law]].<ref>{{Cite book|first=Friedrich|last=Hayek|title=Law, Legislation and Liberty|publisher=University of Chicago Press|place=Chicago|volume=2|year=1976|page=87|isbn=978-0-226-32083-0|title-link=Law, Legislation and Liberty}}</ref></blockquote>

Political theorist Adam James Tebble has argued that Hayek's concession of a social minimum provided by the state introduces a conceptual tension with his epistemically derived commitment to [[private property rights]], [[free markets]], and [[spontaneous order]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Tebble|first1=Adam James|year = 2009|title=Hayek and social justice: a critique|journal=Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy|volume = 12|issue = 4| pages=581–604|doi=10.1080/13698230903471343|s2cid=145380847}}</ref> Hayek's views on social welfare policies have also been the subject of criticism. Critics contend that his opposition to government intervention in the economy fails to recognize the need for social safety nets and other forms of support for vulnerable populations. Furthermore, it has been argued that his views on welfare policy contradict his views on social justice.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tebble |first=Adam James |date=2009-12-01 |title=Hayek and social justice: a critique |journal=Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=581–604 |doi=10.1080/13698230903471343 |s2cid=145380847 |issn=1369-8230}}</ref>