This is not a contextual or systematic interpretation of Hayek's work

[mahbubamim077]

Oreskes and Conway’s in-depth analysis reinforces these conclusions, confirming that, for Hayek, the market cannot be completely free, but must operate under a series of constraints. So much so that Oreskes and Conway show that Hayek rejected the term laissez-faire as misleading. In advocating the successful use of competition as a principle of social organization, Hayek knew that it precludes certain types of coercive interference in economic life, but requires others.

This is not a contextual or systematic interpretation of Hayek's work. Oreskes and Conway cite passages in which Hayek states that opposition to state planning cannot be confused with a dogmatic attitude in favor of sms gateway brunei laissez-faire . On the contrary, the liberal argument implies making the best possible use of the forces of competition to coordinate human efforts, but not simply leaving things as they are.

Among the state interventions in markets that Hayek considers possible and even desirable are paying for road signs, preventing the harmful effects of certain activities – such as deforestation, some forms of agriculture or even noise or smoke from factories, prohibiting the use of poisonous substances that require special precautions, limiting working hours, requiring sanitary conditions in the workplace, controlling weights and measures and preventing violent strikes.