The Hayekian argument for tradition applies only to traditions that evolved from cooperative social choices, not those imposed by force as in slavery. There's no reason to think that an institution imposed by a few people has any special claim on hidden truths; but an institution that arises out of the powerless does have such a claim.

PJ;

I read it a bit differently. A Hayekian would acknowledge the potentially high cost of eliminating slavery, which, after all, was a feature of human society for millenia. But one must weight that against the gain of such elimination. In this view, fundamental changes require extraordinary gains to be worth taking the risk. One can see this in the elimination of slavery. It's much harder to see in the case of gay marriage.

The human costs of the Civil War and the minimal gains for blacks in the following Jim Crow period would seem to call into question whether the radical response was even the best to chattel slavery.

OJ, probably true. But even more true that the South should never have seceded in the first place simply because they were upset Lincoln won the election.

The Declaration of Independance was the death warrant for slavery. The American war for independance was, arguably, a fight in defense of traditional British liberty. A Hayekian respect for the organic institutions of society would, at times, require resistance rather than blind obedience. The benign tradition of marriage as a framework for raising children and providing for its members speaks to it's purpose established over time. To believe that it's worth as an institution is something else, i.e., self-actualization or government benefits, and as such the tradional, organic version is beneath protection will probably be a source of unforseen and unplanned for consequences regarding the family and its traditional, social purpose. If my interests lay in aggrandizing power to the central state, the power of the family unit would surely need to be curtailed so that reliance could be more closely focused on what the state can provide rather than one's closest relations.

Chris:

Absolutely.

The whole comparison with slavery is bogus. Gays are not suffering persecution, their freedom to make a "commitment" to another is not being withheld, only the imprimatur of marriage to that commitment. They cannot (realistically) claim opression. There is no rush to change tradition in this instance, noone is being hurt.

The Lincoln comparison is apt in another way. Right up until Fort Sumter, he pleaded with the South until he was blue in the face that he had absolutely no intention whatever of tampering with the "peculiar institution" where it was already in place; indeed, had the Southern states remained in place, he may have gotten in hot water with the Radical wing of the GOP quickly because, in order to preserve the Union - always his first objective - he might have vetoed any Congressional attempts to go after slavery in the existing slave states.

Similarly, GWB, as far as I can tell, has said not one single word about abrogating any existing rights or protections that gays have; in fact, I seem to recall that the Administration was moving some time ago to strengthen workplace equal-protection regulations for gays (anyone got a cite on this? I might be remembering wrong). He's not even disputing the rights of gays to enter into civil unions, and I would bet he's just as glad that the marriage amendment didn't get through the House, even though he had to support it to keep evangelicals happy.

AOG - The Hayekian insight is that social bargains, especially bargains that persist over time, are likely to incorporate insights and preferences and knowledge of nearly all members of society participating in the bargain; but that of the all the factors that led to this social bargain, only a tiny minority can be known by any human mind. So a dictated solution will necessarily be based on a tiny subset of the relevant facts, whereas the customary solution may be based on all relevant facts. The customary solution is therefore likely to work better.

The notion that we should prefer outcomes in which benefits exceed costs is traditional economics, but the question Hayek was dealing with is: when is it possible for human beings to determine the benefits and costs? If those may be unknowable -- and the benefits and costs of gay marriage are probably unknowable -- then it would be foolish to bet against traditional customs.

Search Engine Cloaker - Cloaking Software