Editing Friedrich Hayek (section)

==== Liberalism and skepticism ====
Arthur M. Diamond argues Hayek's problems arise when he goes beyond claims that can be evaluated within economic science. Diamond argued: <blockquote>The human mind, Hayek says, is not just limited in its ability to synthesize a vast array of concrete facts, it is also limited in its ability to give a deductively sound ground to ethics. Here is where the tension develops, for he also wants to give a reasoned moral defense of the free market. He is an intellectual skeptic who wants to give political philosophy a secure intellectual foundation. It is thus not too surprising that what results is confused and contradictory.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Diamond|first1=Arthur M.|title=F.A. Hayek on Constructivism and Ethics|journal=The Journal of Libertarian Studies|date=Fall 1980|volume=IV/4|pages=353–65}}</ref></blockquote>

[[Chandran Kukathas]] argues that Hayek's defence of liberalism is unsuccessful because it rests on presuppositions that are incompatible. The unresolved dilemma of his political philosophy is how to mount a systematic defence of liberalism if one emphasizes the limited capacity of reason.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kukathas|first1=Chandran|title=Hayek and Modern Liberalism|date=1990|publisher=Oxford University Press|page=215}}</ref> [[Norman P. Barry]] similarly notes that the "[[critical rationalism]]" in Hayek's writings appears incompatible with "a certain kind of fatalism, that we must wait for evolution to pronounce its verdict".<ref>N.P. Barry(1994), "The road to freedom{{snd}}Hayek's social and economic philosophy," in Birner, J., and van Zijp, R. (eds) Hayek, Co-ordination and Evolution – His Legacy in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, pp. 141–63. London: Routledge.</ref> [[Milton Friedman]] and [[Anna Schwartz]] argue that the element of paradox exists in the views of Hayek. Noting Hayek's vigorous defense of "invisible hand" evolution that Hayek claimed created better economic institutions than could be created by rational design, Friedman pointed out the irony that Hayek was then proposing to replace the monetary system thus created with a deliberate construct of his own design.<ref>Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz, "Has Government Any Role in Money?" (1986)</ref> [[John Gray (philosopher)|John N. Gray]] summarized this view as "his scheme for an ultra-liberal constitution was a prototypical version of the philosophy he had attacked".<ref>John Gray, [http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/john-gray-friedrich-hayek-i-knew-and-what-he-got-right-and-wrong "The Friedrich Hayek I knew, and what he got right – and wrong"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150910050445/http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/john-gray-friedrich-hayek-i-knew-and-what-he-got-right-and-wrong |date=10 September 2015 }} (30 July 2015)</ref> [[Bruce Caldwell (economist)|Bruce Caldwell]] wrote that "[i]f one is judging his work against the standard of whether he provided a finished political philosophy, Hayek clearly did not succeed", although he thinks that "economists may find Hayek's political writings useful".<ref>Bruce Caldwell, ''Hayek's Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F.A. Hayek'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), pp. 347–48</ref>