On Hayek's Thoughts Of Equality

Thinkers are divided into egalitarians and non-egalitarians according to whether they approve or not and the scope of their approval .Hayek is an radical non-egalitarians .Though censuring the basis of the people's theories and senses of pursuing material equality ,Hayek thinks that it is a kind of real equality that everyone is legally equal ,and it is the only equality that he admits .The essential equality , especially material equality, which has no realistic feasibility, is what he firmly opposes. The reasons lie in three respects. First, Hayek thinks that people's theoretical basis and sensual basis of pursuing material equality are wrong. However, this author thinks that although such of Hayek's criticism has some reasons, it is still unfair and goes to extremes, and it is defending bourgeoisie. Second, Hayek rejects the material equality from the angle of utility rather than ethic. This has some realistic significance, but it is inhuman, and it is inconsistent, when he criticizes the planned economy and the collectivism. He is stricter to others than to himself. Third, what's more important is that, in Hayek's viewpoint, material equality is in conflict with freedom. He attaches more important to freedom, so that he thinks material equality should make a concession and victimization for freedom. The reason why this kind of conflict appears is that Hayek's view of freedom and equality falls into a model of circular argument. Hayek thinks that people's restriction to each other is indeed a restriction to freedom. In contrast;people's living circumstances cannot be regarded as a restriction. It is certainly reasonable, to some extent, nevertheless, it also deviates from reality, for even beggars have more freedom than kings, and such freedom of beggars can hardly have practical value. The reason why he defines freedom so narrowly is that he thinks if the definition of freedom is expanded, people will desire for material equality. In his view, pursuing material equality will deprive people of freedom. Suchargumentation appears in his theory: the reason why he rejects material equality is that to him pursuing material equality will destroy freedom. Whereas giving such a definition of freedom, Hayek is to prevent people from pursuing material equality. If we give another definition to freedom, the material equality at certain level is indispensable for freedom.The author holds, although we can draw something on his conception of equality, there are still some limitations, and it will lead people to a predicament in practice world. Rawls' two principles of justices solve the conflict between material equality and freedom. In the author's opinion, such view of equality is more valuable and it is a reasonable revision of Hayek's.