Counteracting Freedom in Liberalism A critique of Friedrich Hayek form the field of consumer psychology

(1)

Advertising: Counteracting Freedom in Liberalism

A critiqueof Friedrich Hayek from the field of consumer psychology

Student name: Marius Bosman MSc. Student number: 11336099

Email: marius_bosman5@hotmail.com Supervisor: dr. Gijs van Donselaar

Second reader: dr. Jacques Bos Graduate School of Humanities

MA program: Philosophy of a specific scientific discipline Course: Master’s thesis (189419000Y)

Words: 20,999

(2)

1

Abstract

(3)

2 The aim of this study is to provide a philosophical reflection on the reality of the ideal of

individual freedom in liberalism, as perceived by Friedrich Hayek. This reflection is informed by different realms of scientific literature covering the topics of liberalism, coercion and consumer psychology. Hayek perceives freedom to be the absence of coercion. This conception is

discussed in relation to other perspectives. Hayek’s perspective is adopted in an analysis of recent developments in understanding advertising from the field of consumer psychology. Hayek’s own perspective on coercion helps to recognize threats to freedom from advertising. This indicates that Hayek’s works are still of great value in today’s world. At the same time this threat to freedom highlights that Hayek’s focus on the state may have provided private

companies the opportunity to diminish individuals’ freedom to choose. It is argued therefore that it could be reasonable to conclude that Hayek’s focus on the state - as a threat to freedom - is limited and obsolete.

Chapter 1 Introduction

“America was founded on liberty and independence and not on government coercion, domination and control. We are born free and we will stay free. Tonight we renew our resolve that America

(7)

6 These are the words that American president Donald Trump used in his State of the Union Address on the fifth of February 2019. More than 46 million US citizens viewed this ceremony on television.

At first glance these words might come across as popular and as something that most people embrace, but the meaning of this current narrative exceeds popular discourse. It is of great significance in the liberal political tradition. The quote shows that the ideas of liberal thinkers of the past who concerned themselves with politics and economics still resonate clearly today. The words show great resemblance to direct citations from a thoroughly liberal book: The Road To Serfdom (Hayek, 1944). This work was written by economist and liberal

philosopher Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992). In this book he describes a pathway that leads from socialist governmental interventions in society and in the economy to totalitarianism. His broader central claim pertains to the notion that in order to allow every citizen to make a free spontaneous contribution to civilization and progress, it is important that the coercive power of the state is restricted to a minimum. This idea is what we nowadays call economic and political liberalism, a term that originates from “libertas”, the Latin word for freedom. In this sense liberalism prescribes the organization of society in such a way that freedom for it’s citizens is assured. Since the middle of the twentieth century, Hayek’s ubiquitously cited attempts to formulate his views on the Western liberal bedrocks, such as The Road To Serfdom (1944) and The Constitution Of Liberty (1960), set out this doctrine on a fundamental level. One might argue that these writings appear to have provided a theoretical foundation for politicians like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Donald Trump in the previous and current century. After all, Margaret Thatcher, during her service as neo-liberal Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in a Tory Cabinet meeting, referred to Hayek’s book, The Constitution of Liberty (1960), by saying “This is what we believe!” (Watts, 2007, 273).

In the following chapters, the focus will be on this Austrian scholar for different reasons. Friedrich Hayek is considered the “father of neoliberalism” (Filip, 2012). In this text, I will argue that his ideas are not merely relevant in the political domain. Moreover, Hayek’s work provides a useful understanding for the identification of different strands of threats to freedom in general, not just from the government. Hayek adopts a definition of freedom that is

characterized by the absence of coercion (Hayek, 1960, 5). This particular conception which is closely related to autonomy is convenient, because it allows for the addition of a contribution from the field of consumer psychology. In this realm of science, freedom to choose can also be understood as the state of absence of coercion (Mick, 2008).

The question will be raised whether, by restricting government interventions,

(8)

7 and in doing so, restrict individual freedom. For the investigation of this question which plays a central role in this research, the focus will be on the account of Friedrich Hayek and this will be related to more recent insights from the field of consumer psychology. By doing so Hayek’s words are taken seriously: ”If we are to advance, we must leave room for a continuous revision of our present conceptions and ideals which will be necessitated by further experience.” (Hayek, 1960, 23) Today’s Western societies are different from the ones in the era in which Hayek wrote the two previously mentioned books. One of the most prominent factors that support this statement is the invention and diffusion of the internet. This has allowed the landscape of advertising to change dramatically since the 1990’s. The internet revolution has made it possible for commercial organizations to increase the effectiveness of their advertising strategies (Rusmevichientong & Williamson, 2006), by making make use of algorithms and manufactured manifestations of perfection in their pursuit of persuasion (Spurgin, 2003). In a sense, this has increased the power of commercial enterprises to a new level in recent years.

In this text I attempt to research what consequences this has for the freedom of choice for individuals that live in a liberal “regime of freedom” (Hayek, 1960, 5). Drawing on insights from psychology and consumer decision-making in the internet era, it is argued that we must move beyond the narrow focus of Hayek on the state as the coercive authority in society. Hayek perceived that the state manipulates the conditions under which individuals act through legislation that is enforced by making use of a monopoly on violence (Hayek, 1960, 207-208). This is referred to as a plain example of coercion. Based on the fact that Hayek defines freedom as the absence of coercion (Hayek, 1960, 11), I will question in what manner individuals are, through the same principle of manipulated conditions, confronted by other actors with coercive power. If this is the case, perhaps a more subtle form of coercion might be present in the

relation between commercial enterprises and consumers. This phenomenon manifests itself in the private sphere which is advocated and constituted by a liberal government for the sake of the protection of individual freedom. If this case can reasonably be made, it seems that freedom and autonomy in liberal societies might not be as self-evident as we think. Consequently, this insight implies that those who identify as liberals, as described by Hayek, might need to rethink their design of society to achieve freedom for the individual. This is particularly relevant

because Hayek explicitly mentions that, among other things, he perceives individual freedom to be the ability for individuals to voluntarily choose how to spend their incomes based on their own “values, skills, will, intelligence, and knowledge, without interference from any external forces in the marketplace” (Hayek, 1994, 42).

(9)

8 starting point of the argument that is presented. Taking into account that the concept is defined from various different perspectives in the literature, the perspective of Hayek will be adopted which characterizes freedom as the absence of coercion. The underlying assumption is that an individual can be considered free in the sense that someone shapes his or her own course of action based on their own decisions and plans (Hayek, 1960, 12). This is opposed to the

situation in which the individual is coerced. In that situation, one man’s actions are not serving his own will, but are made to serve another man’s will or the will of an external authority for the other’s purpose (Hayek, 1960, 133).

The structure of the argument that is set out in this text is constituted in the three following chapters. In the next chapter the philosophical account of Hayek is presented. Fundamental elements of Hayek’s regime of freedom are discussed while reflecting upon their epistemological and societal implications. This liberal framework brings forth the perspectives on freedom and coercion that are adopted in the subsequent chapters. In doing so, the

Hayekian perspective is used to understand other accounts of coercion and to interpret the rationale and findings in consumer psychology. Since Hayek characterizes freedom as the absence of coercion, the third chapter is dedicated to a reflection on the nature of this concept. Besides Hayek’s account, different prominent perspectives on coercion are discussed in order to identify the fundamental elements of the concept. This will allow for a comprehensive

understanding to be obtained, which in turn allows for a nuanced investigation of the empirical and theoretical views in consumer psychology in the following chapter. This fourth chapter builds on the foundation that is provided by chapters two and three. After the identification of how political liberalism, freedom and coercion can be understood, this chapter contains an elaboration on the psychological processes that underlie consumers’ decision-making in the marketplace. The role of coercion and manipulation is at the core of this reflection. The psychological realm of science provides the opportunity to reflect upon the nuances and implications of the philosophical perspectives that are adopted in the previous chapters.

Chapter 2 Friedrich Hayek: Liberalism "A Regime of Freedom"

2.1 Introduction

In modern liberal societies like the United States the concept of freedom appears to have obtained an almost divine status. Liberal Western countries have named themselves “The Free

(10)

9 World”. In political philosophy, several different perspectives on freedom are formulated. In order to demarcate this topic in this research, the focus is on one single author: Friedrich Hayek.

This particular scholar is chosen for two reasons. In the first place Friedrich Hayek is considered the “father of neoliberalism” (Filip, 2012). This claim is supported by the illustrative event during Margaret Thatcher’s service as neo-liberal Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. During a Tory Cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street she referred to Hayek’s book, The Constitution of Liberty (1960), by saying “This is what we believe!” (Watts, 2007, 273). The second reason for the focus on his work is that Hayek adopts a definition of freedom that is characterized as the absence of coercion (Hayek, 1960, 5). This particular conception is

convenient, because it allows to add a contribution from the field of consumer psychology. In this realm of science, freedom can also be understood as the state of absence of coercion (Mick, 2008).

The two most prominent works of Hayek that are discussed in this study are The Road To Serfdom (1944) and The Constitution of Liberty (1960). The first can be viewed as an attempt to formulate a theory that shows that liberal capitalism is a more desirable ideology, especially compared to the socialist point of view. The latter can be considered a theoretical foundation of the position that is adopted in the first book. Hayek, a professor in economics, claims that free market economies are superior regimes when it comes to securing individual freedom. In this sense Hayek refers to liberalism as “a regime of freedom” (Hayek, 1960, 5). A central element in his argument is the idea of the spontaneous order in society. Hayek can be characterized as an anti-rationalist liberal philosopher.

In this chapter I reflect upon the political philosophy of Friedrich Hayek by addressing several topics which have a central role in his work. First, the period of time when he

formulated his ideas will be discussed. Once his views are understood as part of the particular period in history, a description will be provided of the anti-rationalist philosophical tradition that Hayek is part of. In paragraph 2.4 Hayek’s understanding of, what he calls, “The Creative Powers of Society” is presented by focusing on the concept “Spontaneous Order”. This discussion is followed by the main part of this chapter, namely the definition of freedom that Hayek advocates. Closely related to this is Hayek’s view on coercion, which is briefly discussed in paragraph 2.6. The second to last paragraph (2.7) is devoted to the role of the state that Hayek views as fundamental for his regime of freedom. Lastly will be explained what threats to freedom Hayek sees in the state as an authority.

(11)

10 2.2 A defense of liberal values in the era of World War II

The liberal account of Friedrich Hayek can best be understood when the period in which he has written his work is taken into account. Friedrich Hayek, born in 1899, wrote his magnum opus The Road to Serfdom in 1944. After the economic crisis in 1923 contrasting ideas of the political ideologies of communism and liberalism became more apparent. Both political ideologies prescribe different paths in their pursuit of an ideal society. Hayek argued that the (national-) socialist and communist desire for state planning can lead to tyranny and totalitarianism. His agenda is not merely to address the dangers of states planning the economy in a fundamental manner, but he views milder forms of socialist governmental interference in Western societies as something that will inevitably develop into tyranny. In his work Hayek refers to this thesis as The Road to Serfdom (1944). It seems reasonable to make the case that, now in the year 2019, we have seen that Hayek’s worrying prediction has not worked out the way he expected. In particular in today’s Western-European countries the interference of the state is more extensive than in others, but to call these countries totalitarian would be ridiculous.

It is interesting to take into account that Hayek has lived the first half of his life in Austria, where he was able to witness the developments in Germany in the second quarter of the 20th century. After these years he resided in England and the United States, which provided him with the opportunity to experience the opposing regimes of different regions in the world first hand. Hayek analyzes the process in which the German society had developed to the totalitarian regime of Adolf Hitler. The “Road” to Serfdom refers in this context to the road of society that leads from state planning to a totalitarian regime in which citizens are unfree (Hayek, 1944, 2). Hayek provides two reasons for why it is important to take notice of this development towards tyranny. In the first place he states that the desire of the West to

deliberately shape its future society could produce the opposite of what is intended. Secondly, it allows the West to understand what separates them from Nazi Germany by the formulation of the Western ideas and by gaining a proper understanding of the identity of the German enemy (Hayek, 1944, 5).

Hayek emphasizes the importance of a particular lesson that must be learned from his analysis. The conditions that nourish progress must be created in order to “release the creative energy of individuals” (Hayek, 1944, 246). In relation to the creation of this societal setting he strongly rejects the opposed common idea that it is desirable to manifest the ambition for progress by deliberately orchestrating and planning progress, because this could lead to the opposite effect of unfree citizens in a regime (Hayek, 1944, 246).

How and why the creative energy of individuals must be released is discussed in the works of Hayek that were published in the following years. He provides a description of an alternative for regimes that entail extensive state planning. He reflects on the shape that this

(12)

11 liberal regime of freedom should adopt in The Constitution of Liberty (1960). Here he presents his theory of freedom in defense of the liberal values and clearly in sharp contrast with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Hayek states that his theory of freedom is based on principles with universal validity and that these are not only relevant in a certain moment in time or country. With this statement he meets his ambition to restate the basic principles of a

philosophy of freedom. If the West wants to prevent themselves from drifting, it must be clear what it is that they want to preserve. From this perspective he reflects on what it is that must be preserved by the West (Hayek, 1960, p2).

2.3 The anti-rationalist tradition

F.A. Hayek explains the philosophical tradition that his ideas are part of by referring to anti-rationalist scholars like Carl Menger and David Hume. Benjamin Constant was a predecessor of Hayek in this tradition. Focusing on the Roman empire, he claims that our understanding of liberty is not constituted by pure reason, but instead predicated on a societal context that must be experienced before one can address freedom (Constant, 1988). In this research it is discussed how Hayek relates to this philosophical tradition in an attempt to provide the fundamental context of his philosophy. It is argued that Hayek is not necessarily an exemplary empiricist (Lindemans, 2011). He has a more nuanced epistemological view about what the source of knowledge is in contrast with traditional empiricists. Instead of fully accepting the empiricist thesis that the only source of our knowledge is experience (Markie, 2017), Hayek makes different observations about how people in general acquire knowledge. Hayek’s philosophy is based on this epistemological claim. The liberal scholar in question can be viewed as a post-positivist empiricist and his evolutionary epistemology represents rather broad empiricist claims (Lindemans, 2011). He makes a distinction between individual sense experience,

individual pre-sensory experience, and racial experience. These concepts are used to explain the growth of knowledge in civilization and constitute Hayek’s learning rule. The source of the increase in knowledge is selective experience that contains knowledge about the environment. It is likely that Hayek would agree with the idea that social knowledge cannot be obtained centrally or in a vacuum, instead one must experience society to achieve this. Accumulated experience of generations adds to the wisdom about society, but is by no means possible to be known by one single individual. This way inductive achievements lead to a genuine increase and evolution of knowledge over time (Lindemans, 2011). The evolution of knowledge and thus civilization resembles and builds on Darwin’s evolution theory which entails a process of natural selection (Smith, 2006). Taking this into account, a paradox can be witnessed in Hayek’s account. On the one hand he advocates that the understanding of society can be obtained

(13)

12 through selective experience, but on the other hand he presents in his work an understanding that appears to be more centrally oriented in the sense that the distinctions that he makes transcend his own selective experience.

In The Constitution of Liberty (Hayek, 1960) Hayek presents the elaboration of these epistemological principles in relation to the concept of freedom. The idea of cultural evolution can be understood by considering a quote of Socrates: “The recognition of our ignorance is the beginning of our wisdom” (Hayek, 1960, 22). From this follows the assertion that it is important to acknowledge that this ignorance allows humans to attain their aims. This belief leads Hayek to reject the idea that the mind of a human being is capable of deliberately understanding and designing civilization (Hayek, 1960, 23). In relation to this he states that reason does not exist independently of experience nor is it capable of deliberately creating society according to an intentional plan. Instead, the experience of generations has allowed mankind to shape society through the interpretation of traditions and institutions. Our understanding of this heritage of past times is partial (Hayek, 1960, 55). Even though structure and agency are in a permanent situation of mutual interaction, culture controls men instead of the other way around. Success of the human kind can therefore only partially be ascribed to conscious knowledge. Adaptations to past experiences, like habits, competencies, emotional attitudes, tools and institutions play a fundamental role in the unpredictable course of civilization. Although not all ignorance leads to success, ignorance plays a crucial part in the unpredictable evolution of society (Hayek, 1960, 26). The standards of conduct of others who have been more successful are imitated through symbols that are the result of experience of others. These symbols, like for instance prices in the marketplace, reflect knowledge and constitute guidance for human action.

2.4 Creative powers of a free society

The creative powers of a free society are the source of the development of civilization. Hayek believes that it is therefore urgently important that a regime of freedom leaves room for the unpredictable irrational outcomes of human activity in order for society to evolve in a spontaneous manner. Instead of the idea that the development of civilization is deliberately constructed, it is based on spontaneous growth. Human knowledge is limited and therefore unplanned behavior and indeterminate institutional developments play an important role in society. State planning counteracts this principle and is therefore objectionable due to its rational nature. Hayek takes this statement one step further by claiming that “Those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become enemies of freedom” (Hayek, 1960, 26).

Individual freedom is predominantly based on the inevitable ignorance of all mankind. This ignorance concerns the majority of factors that have caused the accomplishments of our aims

(14)

13 and welfare (Hayek, 1960, 29). Different ways of reading of The Constitution of Liberty (1960) are possible. One of which entails the perspective that Hayek understands liberty as something that provides society with the ability to make progress and to conserve civilization, because progress occurs when “individuals are allowed to make use of the knowledge which they possess for their own purposes” (Arnold, 1980, 384). This perspective on freedom draws attention to the kind of freedom a free individual would need in order to do things beneficial for society. Freedom for this person could in Hayek’s eyes be assured by giving it to all citizens (Hayek, 1960, 32). By letting a regime of freedom rule it is ingrained in society that the manifestation of a maximal amount of unforeseen outcomes can take place. This is important because these outcomes, which are not necessarily the result of reason, are beneficial for society (Hayek, 1960, 29).

The legitimacy of the pursuit of individual freedom in a civilization is to be found in the idea that a spontaneous order will unfold which is by Hayek assumed to be beneficial for society. As described before Hayek is convinced that human knowledge is limited. When individuals and groups with limited knowledge interact with each other, behavioral and

institutional patterns come about which are unpredictable, unforeseen and non-deterministic in their nature. The outcomes of this evolutionary process of culture and social order constitute a spontaneous order and this is for example reflected in prices and language (Schmidtz, 2016). The price of a particular good represents all the information that is necessary to determine the natural equilibrium between supply and demand. It is, as mentioned before, impossible that all this information is known by one single man. In this sense prices are not based upon individual knowledge, but instead on the totality of collective knowledge in society that is necessary to determine the price. This line of reasoning is closely related to Adam Smith’s theory of the invisible hand (Rothschild, 1994). If a governmental authority determines the price of a good it is presupposed that this authority does have all the necessary information required to

determine the correct price. Since Hayek states that no single man is capable of knowing all this information he vigorously rejects the principle of price setting by an authority (Schmidtz, 2016).

Besides the perspective on prices, another rather telling example illustrates the

manifestation of this particular phenomenon. The Ohio State University, as an authority, did not design or plan the location of the paths between the buildings on the campus.

(15)

14 Instead the choices about what route to take indicated naturally which routes were most

desirable were indirectly made by the collective of organization members. After the footsteps of hundreds of students, lecturers and other staff had created pathways in the dirt on the central oval of the campus, the university decided to pave these paths. The paths are comparable to the institutional patterns of behavior. Hayek would probably argue that if the paths were created by an authority beforehand, they would not be as appropriate as the ones that occurred

spontaneously. Accordingly, when parallels are drawn between this example and the example of prices, Hayek would probably argue that the way to examine whether an authority has set the right price is to verify whether the planned price corresponds with the market price (Schmidtz, 2016). It seems to be the case that Hayek would say that a liberal regime must allow society to develop in the same manner as the paths on the Ohio campus did.

In Hayek’s eyes this is the way that progress in civilization can be realized. Progress is here predominantly understood as economic growth, because the material well-being relieves citizens from misery like starvation, filth and disease (Hayek, 1960, 53). In this context it is the diffusion of material goods that are used in domains like a comfortable home, the means of transportation, enjoyment and entertainment which is referred to (Hayek, 1960, 43). The coming about and distribution of these commodities takes place in a particular fashion. At first, when the item has been produced initially, it is only possible for the elite of a society to afford them as a luxury product because it is produced in small quantities. After this initial use of a product by the elite it reaches the lives of the majority of citizens and this way it is supplied to common people. The well-being of individuals increases and products ultimately reach the poor. This way, through progress, the poor in liberal societies have become more prosperous

compared the poor in planned economic regimes. This way the West has taken the lead in the global race of progress (Hayek, 1960, 43-47).

Such a narrow definition of progress demands justification. A fundamental defense of this conception concept of progress is to be found in the context which has caused the West to “take the lead”. This development is, according to Hayek, related to the process of development and modification of the human intellect. Hayek attributes great value to the aspect of

(16)

15 competition in the free market, because it comprises the discovery of knowledge through

productive trial and error. Human activities that serve no demands or needs are naturally eliminated in the capitalistic quest for financial gain (Kukathas, 1989, 96-98). In this evolutionary process not only the technological and material possibilities expand, but throughout the course of the process our values and desires change (Hayek, 1960, 40). The market operates as a corrective process that enables humans to make progress.

2.5 Hayek’s position in the debates on freedom

Hayek’s understanding of the concept of freedom forms the core of this study. This forms the basis on which the following chapters are built. It is important to mention the fact that Hayek’s definition of this concept is not all-encompassing. His perspective is one that must be combined with those of many others before one can even begin to understand the true complexity and versatility of what it is that we call freedom. Despite this, Hayek’s perspective is very suitable for what is attempted to be achieved in this study . After the elaboration on Hayek's conception of freedom it will be discussed in relation to opposing concepts of freedom. By doing so will be attempted to show what position Hayek adopts in the philosophical debate on freedom.

Hayek explains his particular perspective on the concept in opposition to political, inner and physical liberty. Nor does his conception of freedom correspond with freedom as power or wealth (Hayek, 1960, 11-20). Instead Hayek argues that it must be understood in relation to the concepts of coercion, arbitrariness and legislation. The following quote captures the particular meaning that is delineated in The Constitution of Liberty (1960):

“The state in which a man is not subjected to coercion by the arbitrary will of another or others.” (Hayek, 1960, 11)

According to Hayek, freedom and liberty are analogous terms that both refer to the absence of coercion. He therefore understands these concepts as negative and by doing so Hayek follows the tradition of theorists like Bentham and Mill (Rees, 1963, 347). Hayek's view on freedom is presented by taking into account several key elements that he refers to. First of all, Hayek argued that freedom must be understood as existing in relation to other men. He refers to it as an artifact of civilization and not as a state of nature (Hayek, 1960, 12). Secondly, the

articulation of freedom in relation to other men is to be found in the idea that someone's actions must be based on his own will, instead of based on the will of another person. Therefore, a free individual can in this sense shape his own course of action based on his own decisions and plans

(17)

16 (Hayek, 1960, 12). Thirdly, freedom can exist if coercion is reduced to a minimum. How Hayek defines coercion will be discussed later in this chapter.

Hayek believed that coercion occurred whenever the decisions or choices that individuals made within their private spheres were not determined by their own will, but through the imposition of the will of an external authority.

(Filip, 2012, 72)

In this context freedom is interpreted as something that is being experienced in the private sphere. In this sphere freedom is being threatened when the will of an external authority is imposed.

Hayek claims that the state is the only entity that can possess the legitimate power to coerce, although this is to a minimal extent and this power can only be based upon known rules and laws. The relation between the government and citizens should always be based upon serving citizens rather than mastering them (Filip, 2012). This idea is embedded in Hayek's view of freedom in the marketplace. In interviews with Hayek in 1992 he refers to this as economic freedom. This flows from this conception of individual freedom that he refers to as “the freedom that allows individuals to voluntarily choose how to earn, spend, save, and invest their incomes based on their own values, skills, will, intelligence, and knowledge, without interference from any external forces in the marketplace” (Hayek, 1994, 42). The notion of voluntary action when it comes to choosing how to spend income without interference from external forces, is important in this conception. Hayek’s perspective on freedom focuses therefore on the absence of coercion exercised by an external authority and citizens must be free to spend their income without interference of external forces.

There are vast disputes on how freedom can be perceived since it is an abstract concept that can adopt almost any shape. Hayek presents a substantial, societal and interpersonal interpretation of this concept that can be viewed as distinct from more abstract conceptions. One of the prominent representatives of the group of scholars that view freedom in a more abstract way is John Rawls. According to John Rawls, because of the abstractness of freedom there are many liberal political conceptions of justice (Wenar, 2017). He argues that any liberal political conception will advocate a set of rights for all citizens to secure freedom which will be prioritized “above demands to further the general good” (Wenar, 2017, 3.5). Such demands concern for example the increase of national wealth.

Freedom depends on whether somebody else has the power to manipulate the conditions to make him act according to his own will (Hayek, 1960, 13). This idea of freedom leads Filip (2012) to view Hayek as a theorist who adopts a conception of freedom which is

(18)

17 negative. The first scholar to draw attention to a clear distinction between positive and negative freedom (made by earlier philosophers) was Isaiah Berlin (1969). Here, negative freedom is perceived to concern a state of non-interference or “freedom from”. This is characterized by the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. Metaphorically, it can be explained as the matter of how many doors are open to the acting agent to choose from. In liberalism this is in general a shared perception of freedom and it forms one of the main arguments for a limited state (Carter, 2018). This is opposed to positive freedom which is a concept that views freedom as the

possibility for an agent to realize his or her fundamental purposes and the control the agent has in his life (i.e. freedom to). This idea draws attention to the fulfillment of certain fundamental conditions before a person can exercise this positive freedom to follow his own plan for life. This dimension emphasizes the empowerment of agents in order for an agent to exercise his or her freedom and it is based on the pursuit of self-realization and self-determination. Positive freedom is said to concern the matter of going through the right doors for the right reasons (Carter, 2018).

Related to the concept of positive freedom, introduced by Isaiah Berlin, is the notion of the true self. In the context of this text it should be taken into account that totalitarianist views can be built upon this foundation. Berlin’s perspective on positive freedom entails autonomy in the pursuit of the individual's self-chosen goals, agency and self-rule (Cherniss & Hardy, 2018). This must be understood in opposition to dependence on others. Here Berlin stands on the shoulders of Rousseau who understood freedom with self-rule as obedience to the general will. In this context the individual is placed into a collective in order to construct a definition of this true self. The general will refers to the public or common interest and can be perceived as opposed to the selfish wills of individuals. Freedom can be obtained merely by disavowing one’s own desires through the absorption of the individual in a larger group. By doing so the empirical self can be transcended in order to transform into the true or noumenal self that represents someone's best interest and which corresponds with a bigger cause or the injunction of rationality. Since Berlin insistently opposes this pitfall of positive freedom, he emphasizes the importance of individualism, empiricism and pluralism as opposed to collectivism, holism, rationalistic metaphysics and monism (Cherniss & Hardy, 2018). A form of criticism that can be raised against Berlin is that there is always a notion of a true self underlying the assumption that there are such things as coercion and manipulation (counteracting positive freedom). Although referred to in opposition to changed intentions, it has been shaped by external

influences since birth. In this true self there is always an unchosen part that adopts the shape of culture or personality. This self can be identified as the starting point that individuals digress from under the influence of the environment. In the context of this study, a fundamental

(19)

18 one argues coercion, manipulation or other instances of changed actions of an individual due to external influences to be play, it is inevitable to automatically adopt the notion of true self at the same time. This is the case because someone is argued to do something different than he or she would have done without external influences. The true self is reflected in the path of conduct that someone would follow without being exposed to external influences.

Although Rees (1963) and Filip (2012) claim that Hayek can be perceived as a proponent of a negative conception of freedom, Sean Irving (2017) argues that Hayek can be considered a scholar who belongs to the Neo-Republican tradition like Philip Pettit and Quentin Skinner. Neo-Republicans embrace a perspective on freedom in which freedom is seen as based on a historical tradition instead of viewing it as a product of political theory. Freedom is viewed by Neo-Republican as non-domination, which can be explained as “having no master” (Biagini, 2003). In this sense does interference not always mean that someone's freedom is threatened. Especially when interference is based on arbitrariness freedom is at risk. Both Pettit and Skinner acknowledge this by stating that interference may be permitted in some cases (Irving, 2017). Pettit argues that rule of law is an example of this permitted form of interference. Laws do restrict someone's actions but are not based on arbitrariness. Instead, they have universal validity and their application is predictable. Therefore they are not an instrument that facilitates domination (Maddox, 2002). Besides the positive and negative conceptions of freedom, the Neo-Republican view on freedom can be considered a third alternative way to think about freedom (Irving, 2017). Authors who represent Neo-Republican views share the view that arbitrary use of power as is fundamentally objectionable. These scholars warn in particular against the possibility of exercising arbitrary power. The democratic principle that prescribes the participation of citizens in political decision-making serves as a proviso to prevent this use of power. Although Hayek can be read as a proponent of a negative conception of freedom, it is worth noting that there are similarities between Hayek’s view and contemporary neo-Roman or -Republican conceptions of freedom. Because Hayek refers to freedom as a state in which a person is not subjected to coercion by the arbitrary will of another or others, his reasoning seems to correspond with the non-domination way of thinking about freedom. This is reflected in the word “serfdom” in The Road to Serfdom (1944) which draws attention to the ideal of freedom as opposed to serving another.

2.6 Coercion

The topic in the following chapters will be the nature of coercion. At this point in the text it is fruitful to explain what Friedrich Hayek means when he refers to coercion. He views coercion as “one man’s actions are made to serve another man’s will, not for this own but for the other’s

(20)

19 purpose” (Hayek, 1960, 133). The coerced still chooses because he is still an acting individual. Furthermore, in a situation in which coercion is exercised, the mind of the individual is someone else’s tool. Here, the alternatives to choose from are manipulated by another man so the action that is desired by the individual is the least painful option for the acting subject (Hayek, 1960, 133). “Coercion implies both the threat of inflicting harm and the intention thereby to bring about certain conduct” (Hayek, 1960, 134). The principle that someone's conduct is reduced to be an tool for the aims of someone else makes coercion an fundamental infringement into the individual's private sphere.

2.7 Role of the state in society

Hayek derives prescriptions for the role of the state from the elements of the definition of freedom. These prescriptions together normatively describe the ideal way in which society should be organized and what role the government should adopt in this context. Hayek refers to this as a regime of freedom, whose main task is to “release the creative energy of individuals” (Hayek, 1944, 246). Freedom is seen as “the opportunity it provides for the growth of the undesigned” (Rees, 1963, 347). This means that coercion must be prevented as much as possible, even though coercion cannot be eliminated entirely (Hayek, 1960, p11). Hayek refers to the strength of a civilized society as a collective power that is based on the voluntary

combination of effort under a unified direction.

A regime of freedom must secure a private sphere for the individual where others cannot interfere (Hayek, 1960, 13). The arbitrary will of others should not be able to penetrate in this sphere. Talking in terms of rights of the individual confirms the existence of such a sphere. When a free society is compared to an unfree society an essential difference is that in a free society a private sphere is secured, which is distinct from the public sphere. The individual is not commanded to follow orders, but instead he is expected to follow the rules that are applicable to all citizens (Hayek, 1960, 207-208). The rule of law facilitates the formulation of rights through a legal system in society and constitutes this sphere in which the arbitrary will of another cannot intervene with the conduct of an individual citizen (Hayek, 1960, 140).

Following this line of reasoning, it seems as if Hayek views the rule of law as a fundamental condition for freedom. In a sense, Hayek’s view on laws is paradoxical. One the one hand laws seem to counteract freedom, because the state imposes these restrictive and coercive laws on citizens and in extreme situations it makes use of violence for the execution of laws. Laws could here be perceived as restricting freedom. But on the other hand laws do limit the aggression of others and this provides freedom in a negative sense. By doing so they prevent the coercion of others in someone’s private sphere and therefore they can be seen as a condition to let liberty

(21)

20 prevail. Although individuals have to follow these rules, Hayek argues that he is free because when laws are obeyed they are obeyed to as general abstract rules that are imposed regardless of their application to particular individuals (Rees, 1963, 348). Because of this paradoxicality O’Hear (2006) refers to Hayek as a pluralist when it comes to values. Instead of a single sort of ethical values that he adopts universally, Hayek defends distinct lines of reasoning to determine whether coercion is desirable. On the other hand one could agree with Irvin’s (2017) conclusion that Hayek is a Neo-Roman. If this is perceived to be plausible, the ambiguity of laws imposed by the state does not seem problematic, but instead it appears to promote liberty. This is based on the idea that laws are not arbitrary, but regular and known by citizens before they decide to act. If one follows the characterization of Hayek as a Neo-Republican it might provide some useful insights in how Hayek would potentially resolve the paradoxicality in his ideas concerning the law. For a negative liberty theorist, law is necessarily an interference in individual liberty. However, for a Neo-Roman theorist, it is only arbitrary coercion that is a threat to liberty. A regime of limited, impartial, settled and known laws may not therefore be seen as a threat to liberty, but rather can be seen as promoting it. This is contrary to the idea that some sort of enlightened absolutism is for the citizens’ own good.

Hayek says the following about legitimate forms of coercion by the state: State interventions in the market are solely acceptable in a situation in which the policy of state interventions promotes the rights and duties on which the competitive order is based. If this is not the case interventions do hinder the desirable development of progress (Kukathas, 1989, 96-98).

The only coercion of the state that is required to ensure freedom is the enforcement of known rules that are intended to ensure the best conditions that allows the individual to follow his own plan of activities based on his or her own coherent rational pattern (Hayek, 1960, 144). Examples of this legitimate coercion are taxes and compulsory military service and protection of private property. It can be said that Hayek pursues multiple values when it comes to evaluation of coercion and planning. In relation to this he states that all modern governments facilitate provisions for the indigent, unfortunate and disabled and there is no reason not to increase these services as wealth increases. The acceptance of certain welfare principles is for example related to Hayek’s quote: “even the provision of a uniform minimum for all those who cannot provide for themselves involves some redistribution of income” (Hayek, 1960, 303). Tebble (2009) refers to Hayek as self-contradictory, because Hayek views social justice at the same time as unworkable. If we focus on what role the state should adopt in the production of collective goods, it is claimed that Hayek did not succeed to provide the exact parts of the puzzle. Some scholars have attempted to fill in this piece (De Jasay, 1996). Interpretations of Hayek lead them to believe that public goods cannot be provided through the market

(22)

21 mechanism because transactions in the marketplace are voluntary and mutually beneficial in their nature. Therefore they must be produced by the coercive state, which is Pareto-superior to the market. If the state does not do so they cannot be produced at all (De Jasay, 1996).

2.8 The state as a threat to freedom

If the state exercises coercive power over its citizens which does not meet the previously stated conditions, the freedom of citizens is undermined. Economic planning is strongly rejected because “it treats individuals and their work as means to some end they have not chosen, and in so doing it deprives them of their freedom” (O’Hear, 2006, 139). Socialism is Hayek’s main examples of this. The foundation of the thesis that socialism is a threat to be found in the idea that it is a system based on coercion. This counteracts citizens from making a contribution to civilization that is as great as possible. Hayek designates distinct arguments for this assertion.

In the first place are both free and unfree societies guided by laws as restrictive rules. In an unfree society the nature and extent of legislative restrictions is different from those in a free society. In this context restrictions are arbitrary and thus evil. With the term arbitrary Hayek draws attention to the idea that the maker of the law is unaware of the particular cases to which the law will apply. The law is designed in ignorance of any individual cases and has universal power. Therefore the coercion that is concealed in the law through the process of prosecution is not directly decided by another person (Hayek, 1960, 153). If laws are not imposed on

individuals irrespective of their application to them, individuals are coerced by the arbitrary will of another person (Rees, 1963, 348). This makes coercion unavoidable and unpredictable, which according to Hayek constitutes a situation in which coercion adopts it’s most disturbing shape (Hayek, 1960, 143). Arbitrary must in this context not be understood causally, but instead as the fickle intentions of others that do not conform to the pre-existing general principles of law (Hayek, 1960, 196). If the law is followed the individual is free because he is not subjected to another man's will. For central planning to be carried out, power must be concentrated in the hands of a few people. This is a threat to democracy and freedom because these individuals that form the governmental authority have an advantage compared to the rest of society. Hayek argues that this will is part of a process in which power will rise to the top of the planning bureaucracy. This is referred to as the “abuse of power problem” (Boettke, 2018). An important element of what is threatening freedom is that citizens decide to leave decisions to an expert (i.e. authority) and adopt his or her opinion without questioning it. Hayek believes that this expert person only has a limited understanding of the problem that he or she tries to solve with their expertise, because a single mind cannot understand all the knowledge that governs the actions in society. (Hayek, 1960, p4).

(23)

22 The second argument that can be found in Hayek’s writings concerns the economy of an unfree state and concerns the idea of the “knowledge problem”. Prices of goods in the market should be able to adopt the price point that the market dictates instead of being set by a particular authority. Through the process of mobilization of the dispersed knowledge a particular price point naturally comes about, which represents all the relevant knowledge in society. In a planned economy prices are set by an authority that consists of a few people, this way the dispersed knowledge cannot be mobilized (Boettke, 2018). It is impossible to centralize all the information required to set prices, because of the complexity of a large society. This complexity is composed of enormous amounts of citizens that all make individual choices. Instead of leaving the prices to be constituted by the spontaneous forces in society in a system that is based on competition, the will of those that make up the authority determines who gets what (O’Hear, 2006). This involves coercion because the conditions under which individuals make decisions that are counted on are manipulated by an authority. In relation to this matter, in paragraph 3.2 will the undesirability of state monopoly be addressed, which is for example reflected in the monopoly on employment that the state has in a planned economy.

(24)

23

Chapter 3 The Nature of Coercion

3.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter the case of coercion by the state was discussed, as referred to by Friedrich Hayek. It is argued that the legitimacy and sovereignty of a state depends on how it uses its ability to coerce in an effective manner. In the 1970’s the philosophical debate had started to address coercion. Developments in society like tensions between the U.S. and U.S.S.R, globalization and terrorism are perceived to have fueled the interest in this particular concept (Anderson, 2017). Coercion is a form of power, but not all manifestations of power are

manifestations of coercion. Coercion is, like liberty, a concept that is used to address a wide variety of phenomena (McCloskey, 1980). That is the reason why the nature of coercion will be discussed in this chapter. In general, coercion can be recognized by it’s two distinct dimensions. In the first place there is the technique that is being used by an agent in order to coerce.

Secondly there is the reason why the person who is coerced does something or refrains from doing it. The word “coercion” is used in particular to address the interpersonal violation of one’s rights. Examples of this are social pressures, the constraining or manipulative effects of

advertising, one's upbringing or the participation of citizens in society (Anderson, 2017). In this chapter a reflection on the nature of coercion will be provided. The reason for this is to be able to link the perspective of Friedrich Hayek to the scientific discipline of

consumer psychology. What connects these domains is the fact that coercion is a concept that is subjected to discussion in both fields. This chapter is constituted of five paragraphs. In

paragraph 3.2 Friedrich Hayek's perspective on coercion will be discussed. This will be followed by a section (3.3) dedicated to the elaboration on how coercion can be understood in relation to other forms of manipulated conditions. In paragraph 3.4 the main perspectives in the debate on the nature of coercion will be presented. The elements that the scholars under consideration seem to agree on will be mentioned in paragraph 3.5. From this follows the interpretation of coercion that I perceive to be accurate, which forms the content of paragraph 3.6.

3.2 Hayek’s perspective on coercion

In the previous chapter is Friedrich Hayek’s notion of coercion briefly mentioned and how this concept fits in Hayek’s bigger liberal framework. In this paragraph the elaboration on Hayek’s notion of coercion continues in order to fully understand how he perceives coercion. A quote that roughly illustrates the description of the concept which Hayek embraces is the following:

(25)

24 “One man’s actions are made to serve another man’s will, not for his own but for the other’s

purpose” (Hayek, 1960, 133).

In the chapter on Coercion and the State in The Constitution of Liberty (Hayek, 1963) is referred to different elements of coercion. Hayek states that a person who is coerced still acts and is in a position to make a choice. The mind of the coerced is a tool for someone else, since the options to choose from are manipulated in such a way that the option of conduct which the coercer finds desirable is the least painful option for the coerced (Hayek, 1960, 133).

Coercion is perceived to entail the threat of doing harm as well as the intention to bring about a particular kind of conduct. In case of coercion the agent does not determine his conduct as part of his own plan of action, but instead this is controlled by the plan of the coercer. This way the coercer intentionally changes the conditions under which the agent acts (Hayek, 1960, 133). Coercion is defined in such a way that it includes the manipulation of the environment of the agent. This can take place through deception or withholding particular relevant facts (Miller, 2010). In this sense Hayek views manipulation and deception as a forms of coercion. Here, Hayek says that he perceives coercion to be: “the control of the essential data of an individual’s action by another” (Hayek, 1960, 139). Hayek claims that this is the case because with

deception, the conditions on which the conduct of an agent is based are manipulated (Hayek, 1960, 143).

Although power is commonly perceived as the power to coerce, Hayek points out that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous. The reason for this is the idea that power is not a bad thing in all cases, but coercion is, since it involves doing harm and the involuntary

subjection of the coerced (Hayek, 1960, 135).

In relation to human needs, Hayek says that man can be coerced in rare cases in which there is a monopoly on a desired good that is essential to his existence or the realization of what he values most. In a planned economy for example, the state has full power to coerce because it possesses a monopoly on employment by owning all enterprises in society. Comparable to this is a situation in which only one authority possesses all the water in the world. Because the life of an agent depends on it and he has no other option to choose from, he can for example be

coerced to pay large amounts of money for it. A way to escape arbitrary coercion in this case is to oblige the authority (i.e. state) to treat all customers (citizens) alike by asking the same price for everyone without the arbitrariness (Hayek, 1960, 136). This perspective could also be adopted in the evaluation of a monopoly on goods that are non-crucial for survival like for example paintings. Hayek would view this monopoly of one painter making all the paintings not as coercive, because having a portrait of oneself is not an essential life need. Monopolies on life

(26)

25 needs can be considered to provide opportunities for coercion, because not possessing the essential need constitutes by definition a course of action that is unworkable and is therefore desired to be avoided. Furthermore is this situation fundamentally harmful for the coerced, because his life might be at risk if he chooses.

Coercion can be identified in a range of situations that vary from mild to severe forms. The variable that determines the degree of coercion is perceived to be the amount of power that the coercer has to punish. The success of an attempt to coerce depends on the inner strength of the coerced to resist or cope with the punishment (Hayek, 1960, 138).

Opportunities for coercion are present in most interpersonal relationships between individuals and thus restrictions of personal liberty are commonly experienced. Not all situations of mild coercion can be avoided. In relation to this Hayek states that because of this we should not try to prevent more severe cases of coercion, nor that liberty should be defined differently than the absence of coercion. (Hayek, 1960, 139).

The prevention of coercion can take place in different ways. The state plays an

important role in the prevention of coercion by others for mainly two reasons. The first reason that Hayek gives is already mentioned: it is the responsibility of the state has to treat all persons as equal without discrimination. Secondly and more fundamentally, Hayek points out that the state should secure a private sphere for the individual in which the interference of others cannot penetrate. The assurance that the individual can rely on certain factors that are not determined by the arbitrariness of another person plays an important role in this line of reasoning. Such a sphere can solely be constituted by an authority like the state that has the required powers. If the state has the ability to formulate and enforce laws that are imposed equally on all citizens, a private sphere is constituted through the vindication of rights for the individual (Hayek, 1960, 140). What does and does not fall within this sphere should not be determined by the arbitrary will of the authority, but instead it has to be determined by the members of society themselves in order for coercion not to occur.

According to Hayek, it is crucial that material possessions in the form of private property fall within this sphere. In order for citizens to be able to pursue their own plans, the material means that are required to move in this particular direction must be secured. Owning personal material possessions is a condition that makes voluntary transactions and competition possible. This strips away the possibilities to coerce because the agent can determine himself what to do with his possessions. Other rights which are intangible and secured by contracts and laws - like morality of action and the right to security - have their place in the private sphere as well (Hayek, 1960, 141). Hayek considers the prevention of coercion between citizens as the justification of the threat of coercion by the state. Laws serve the purpose of preventing many

(27)

26 kinds of coercion because they are designed to prevent people from doing things arbitrarily. On the other hand they entail an unavoidable form of coercion.

3.3 The spectrum of manipulating conditions: from incitement to coercion

In order to increase conceptual sensitivity in this chapter, it makes sense to think about coercion as if the concept represents a particular place on the spectrum of distinct instances in which one actor changes the conditions under which someone else has to act. Making

distinctions between these forms of changing conditions is a difficult task, because the interpretations of the situations are based on subjectivity. To categorize these instances requires the ability to objectify these subjectivities. Although, this might lead to a simplified view of the particular case, it provides useful insights to think about incitement, coercion and other forms of manipulating conditions in an accurate way. The difference between

manipulation and coercion could be perceived as if in case of coercion the undesirable option of conduct is made unattractive by the coercer. Manipulation on the other hand, is more deceptive (Rudinow, 1978) and the manipulated individual is mostly unaware of being manipulated. This can be illustrated by the idea that if one knows he is manipulated at that very moment and objects to this, the manipulation has failed. Furthermore, it entails the deliberate withhold or misrepresentation of information in order to let the manipulated do what the manipulator wants. In this sense can be stated that the manipulation (i.e. alteration) of the conditions under which an individual acts does not necessarily mean that the individual himself is manipulated. Instead, the alteration of conditions indicates that the conduct of a person is attempted to be influenced in by someone else a broader sense. In accordance with the description of

manipulating someone (as opposed to the situation), the common perception of manipulation is that it is disadvantageous for the person being manipulated. In the literature on the concept, manipulation is perceived to be at stake in cases where a statement or action does not

sufficiently engage or appeal to people’s capacity for reflective and deliberate choice (Sunstein, 2015). This is related to the sentiment that manipulation does not respect people’s autonomy and dignity. John Stuart Mill introduced the “Harm Principle” and this principle seems to be violated in all cases of manipulation because it prescribes that: “People know what is in their best interests and should have a manipulation-free opportunity to make that decision”

(Sunstein, 2015, 1). Building upon Mill’s Harm Principle, the extent to which the autonomy and deliberation of choice for the manipulated individual are reduced, seems to determine how objectionable people find a particular example of manipulation. Incitement, requests and mild temptation can be considered to occupy one side of this spectrum and are perceived by most people as rather harmless. If the yardstick is the harm principle, coercion appears to be located

(28)

27 on the other harmful end of the spectrum, as well as instances of seduction, deception,

manipulation, conditioning, subliminal advertising, brainwashing and torture. To be incited or requested by someone is in this sense thought to be less disadvantageous than extreme forms of coercion. This is related to the idea that most people, like Hayek, think about coercion as

harmful. With regards to this matter, Hayek says that coercion is wrong, since it involves doing harm and the involuntary subjection of the coerced (Hayek, 1960, 135). With most forms of manipulating conditions, the autonomy of an individual to act is at stake and potentially

threatened. Correspondingly, Hayek views coercion as morally rejectable because the coerced is deprived from his ability to contribute to the community that he is part of, because he is not able to use his mental capacity to the full extent (Hayek, 1960, 134). The most evil kind of coercion is, according to Hayek, coercion that manifests itself in an arbitrary way. Manipulation starts to become totalitarian if the manipulator acts on the idea that he participated in the act of

manipulation because he knows better what is beneficial for the individual than the individual knows himself.

3.4 Positions in the debate on the nature of coercion

In the literature concerning this topic, different perspectives on coercion are defended. In this paragraph an overview of the distinct claims about the nature of coercion will be presented. The most notable distinction, which will be addressed in this paragraph and which demarcates groups of scholars, is the distinction between understanding coercion in relation to a state as opposed to a more universal or context independent approach.

3.4.1 The governmental perspective on coercion

Friedrich Hayek is part of a broader group of thinkers that has reflected upon the concept of coercion in relation to a governmental context. Other philosophers and scholars that can be considered part of this group are Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Hans Kelsen.

The first scholar to be discussed is Thomas Aquinas. His early notion of coercion can best be understood as something that manifests itself in political authority. The roots of his interpretation are to be found in Aristotle’s beliefs concerning humans who flourish in a well-functioning polis, because coercion is assumed to lead to human beings becoming virtuous (Weithman, 1992). Thomas Aquinas describes coercion as a kind of necessity in the sense that the activities of the agent who coerces bring about something necessary for the agent who is coerced. In this sense the coercer prevents the coerced from doing the opposite or something different to what he or she views as necessary. Thomas Aquinas bases the distinction between

(29)

28 voluntary and involuntary on whether the conduct of the coerced is in accordance with his own inclinations. Thus, in a situation of coercion, the coerced involuntarily participates in a

particular course of action which is repugnant to his will (Anderson, 2017). Coercion is from this perspective argued to be related to the rule of law in society because it contains a rule of human acts on the one hand, and a coercive power on the other. The coercive power needs to be owned by the whole people or by a person that fulfills a public position in order to refrain the subordinate citizens from doing harm to others. The application of the law is based on the use of force and fear. This way individuals who are subjected to the law become habituated and

virtuous. It is stated that this power belongs to public domain and not to private parties, although in a social group such a thing as a household imperfect coercive power is allowed to a small degree, because here no irreparable harm is done (Anderson, 2017).

Scott Anderson (2017) groups the modern philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Immanuel Kant together in one camp when he discusses coercion. He argues that they share the claim that it is crucial for citizens to form a state with coercive powers because it is a way to achieve justice and protection. In this context one might reject the totality of the state to escape the coercive powers at play within it.

The reason for Hobbes to support this claim is because he emphasizes the role of contracts in society. In his perspective, the state can be viewed as a protective alternative for citizens to their natural state of war outside the state. Although Hobbes rarely speaks of

coercion, it is said that his theoretical works pertain to the notion that within the state coercive powers are at play as the means to enforce this social contract (Anderson, 2017). Contracts can be considered the adequate term to illustrate this, since Hobbes views “a bond of words” as too weak. In order for the contract to be effective, the means must be at hand to enforce

consequences of unrightful behavior (Anderson, 2017). It is argued that Hobbes views coercion as necessary to ensure that justice is in the interest of all (Ripstein, 2017). Hobbes views it as reasonable that those who will do harm to others should be prevented from doing so on the basis of fear, although fear can be perceived as merely a passion. In relation to this is stated that justice depends on the validity of covenants. In this context the idea that the sovereign

possesses coercive force is indispensable. If man wants to be protected from the natural state of war, he finds refuge in a state because within a state others that want to do harm are prevented from doing so due to the coercive powers of the state (i.e. Leviathan). This is the reason that Hobbes is perceived to hold that coercive power can be considered an important element for the justification and operation of the state (Anderson, 2017). An important nuance in Hobbes’ perspective on coercion is that one way of thinking about his account is to focus on the choice of options open to an individual. Coercion is in this context by Hobbes not viewed as to depriving individuals of their freedom, because it is part of a covenant that can be chosen for. This is also

(30)

29 the reasoning behind why Hobbes does not view laws as constraints. If one decides not to participate in the contract, his rights are lost. Obviously there are drawbacks in not accepting this contract. In this sense, it might be more accurate to say that one is tempted to follow the law instead of being coerced. Despite this attenuative notion, an individual is condemned to

punishment if he does not act in accordance with the prescriptions of the contract while being citizen of a state.

Locke shares the belief that within the state is legitimized to coerce in order to prevent citizens from doing harm to others, although he is less concerned with an undesirable state of nature. Locke draws attention to the danger that lies in the arbitrariness that a sovereign with coercive powers has. The effective possession of coercive power depends therefore on the rightful use of this power. Essential for Locke is the idea that the sovereign represents the will of the people and not his own. This is the basis of it’s justification and serves as a principle to ensure stability to prevent revolutions. As soon as the sovereign does not follow the law but decides to use his coercive power arbitrarily, tyranny begins as he violates the rights of others (Anderson, 2017). Like Hayek, Locke argues that property rights are claimed to be excluded in some cases from coercive powers. In relation to this idea, Nozick referred to the Lockean proviso: An individual is qualified to protect his property that he has earned himself as long as “there is enough and as good left in common for others” (Nozick 1974, 175). On the basis of this principle it is possible to determine the acceptability of sets of coercive arrangements

(Anderson, 2017). From the Lockean perspective it is reasonable to state that attention is drawn to the idea that the democratic process ensures that coercive power cannot be used arbitrarily. The Habermasian-like, power free public sphere (Dahlberg, 2005) seems to foster autonomy and this seems to some extent dependent on the absence of arbitrary coercion. A way to not to be subjected to the coercive powers in the state is again to place oneself outside of the state, although this idea seems more difficult today than it was in the past.

Kant discusses his interpretation of the concept of coercion in Doctrine of Right (1797). This can be understood by considering the two different incentives for people to follow the law which Kant distinguishes. Firstly, the ethical reason to follow the law because it is man’s duty to do so. Secondly, punishment serves as a way to make people follow the law. People follow the law based on inclinations and aversions because their will is determined by pathological factors. In order to enforce the law effectively on the basis of Kant’s first incentive, coercive power is a tool to prevent people who fall in the second category from violating the rights of other citizens. Although coercive force in the form of punishment restricts freedom, it can be justified because it is viewed as a way to prevent individuals from limiting someone else's freedom. Because of this claim, Kant emphasizes that the right and the authorization to use coercive force are the same thing. The state needs coercive power in order to enforce laws that guarantee equal rights

Counteracting Freedom in Liberalism A critique of Friedrich Hayek form the field of consumer psychology

Advertising: Counteracting Freedom in Liberalism

Abstract

Table of contents

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 2

Friedrich Hayek: Liberalism "A Regime of Freedom"

Chapter 3

The Nature of Coercion