Introduction

F. A. Hayek's political thought is usually credited with offering a ‘restatement’ of classical liberalism and a new argument for modern liberalism. ¹ The question of liberty occupies a central position in his writings. ² It is thus appropriate that the focus of critical scrutiny should be an evaluation of his argument for liberty. ³ Hayek differs from other exponents of modern liberalism in that his argument for individual liberty rests primarily on a social theory, rather than on moral philosophical premisses. ⁴ Liberalism, Hayek writes, ‘derives from the discovery of a self-generating or spontaneous order in social affairs’. ⁵ He traces the intellectual roots of this theory of spontaneous order to the tradition of ‘classical liberalism’, and, especially, to the writings of Bernard Mandeville, David Hume and Adam Smith. Although the argument upon which Hayek's defence of liberty ultimately rests has recently been the subject of detailed critical analysis, ⁶ his claims concerning the origins of the theory of spontaneous order are rarely questioned. In this study, I argue that a careful examination of the thought of Mandeville, Hume and Smith shows that they do not in fact share the main tenets of Hayek's theory of spontaneous order.