Tom O’Connor Working Paper SeriesDepartment of Government, UCC

‘The Significance and Context of Hayek’s 1945 Finlay Memorial Lecture’

Mark Nolan

1

No. 39, November 2014

2

The Significance and Context of Hayek’s 1945 Finlay Memorial Lecture

Mark C. Nolan

1. Introduction

Austrian philosopher and 1974 Nobel prize winning economist, Friedrich August

Von Hayek delivered the Twelfth Finlay Memorial Lecture at University College Dublin,

titled ‘Individualism: True and False’ on the 17th December, 1945, soon after his iconic

political book The Road to Serfdom (Hayek 2007[1944]) that had outlined how fascism

and communism both represented totalitarian centrally controlled systems (2007: 23), had

been launched to acclaim (Hazlitt 1944: 1, 21) and criticism (Thomas 1945: 38-41)1in

both Britain and America (2007: 18-19).

Considered one of the fathers of classical liberalism and more modern Neoliberalism,

Hayek’s ideas would inspire his prodigy Milton Friedman and his apostles Margaret

Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. More recently his 1944 book returned to the international

1 See also E. F. M. Durbin’s critical review of Hayek’s book in The Economic Journal (Durbin 1945) and Ronald Hamowy’s outline of Professor Hermann Finer’s 1945 “venomous” book, ‘The Road to Reaction’ written in response to ‘The Road to Serfdom’ (2011: 3, fn. 4).

3

best seller lists due to Glenn Beck’s Fox News television2 programmes and 2012

Republican vice presidential candidate Congressman Paul Ryan.

Hayek’s original 1945 University College Dublin lecture outlined the origins and

evolution of two different interpretations of ‘individualism’, comparing and contrasting

what Hayek terms ‘true’ and ‘false’ individualism notwithstanding the misleading

contemporary interpretations and distorted perceptions of the assumptions underlining

‘true’ individualism.

Individualism underpins one of the most important movements in political and

economic thought that would dominate the second half of the last century.

The term Neoliberalism began in the 1930s when the Colloque Walter Lippmann

was held in Paris in 1938 and became known as the Mont Pelèrin Society after the war

under the leadership of Hayek and Albert Hunold (Plehwe 2009: 15). Early neoliberals

such as Hayek and his fellow Austrian and mentor Ludwig von Mises searched for an

alternative to constructed statism and omnipotent governments to encourage personal

liberty and initiative within naturally occurring competitive free markets. They

considered the function of the state was to be decentralised whilst ensuring the rule of

law and individuals’ private and property rights are democratically secure.

In acknowledging Hayek’s Road to Serfdom John Jewkes contemporaneously asserted

that;

“At the root of our troubles lies the fallacy that the best way of ordering

economic affairs is to place the responsibility for all crucial decisions in the hands

of the State”(Tribe 2009: 84).

This working paper outlines the significance and context of Hayek’s Finlay Memorial

Lecture, a lecture that I consider a prelude to one of his greatest works, his 1960 The

Constitution of Liberty (2011). In his Constitution of Liberty Hayek outlined how in a

free society rules

“have never been deliberately invented but have grown through a gradual process

of trial and error in which the experience of successive generations has helped to

make them what they are... and how such a mutual adjustment of the spontaneous

activities of individuals is brought about by the market, provided that there is a

2 See Glenn Beck Presents: F. A. Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’ on YouTube parts 1, 2 & 3

4

known delimitation of the sphere of control of each individual” (Hayek 2011:

225, 229).

Hayek was later to include his University College Dublin lecture (1946), as a chapter in

his 1948 Individualism and Economic Order (2010: 46-74) notwithstanding that his

Dublin lecture was originally intended by Hayek to be the introduction section of his

never to be completed ‘Abuse of Reason’ project.

Writing to his fellow Austrian Fritz Machlup in 1939, Hayek told him that he had

envisioned that his proposed ‘Abuse of Reason’ book “should form the basis of a a

systemic intellectual historical investigation of the fundamental principles of the social

development of the last hundred years (from Saint-Simon to Hitler)” (2010: 1, fn. 2).3

2. Irish Context

The Finlay annual lecture series was in honour of the Rev. Thomas A. Finlay SJ (1848-

1940), the first Professor of Political Economy at University College Dublin, a university

originally founded by the Jesuit order (McRedmond 1991: 234-236). Finlay was a

prominent member of the Irish intelligentsia and he was instrumental in the formation of

the Irish agricultural co-operative movement and its umbrella organisation, the Irish

Agricultural Organisation Society, together with Sir Horace Plunkett (O’Brien 1940).

John Maynard Keynes had delivered the inaugural Finlay Lecture in 1933 (Keynes

1933)4 followed by other distinguished economists such as John Jewkes (1952), Bertil

Ohlin (1934) and Redcliffe N. Salaman (1943).

Amongst the University College Dublin audience were the Irish Free State’s

Minister for Finance, Frank Aiken, and Minister for Local Government, Mr. Sean

MacEntee. From the opposition benches were the Irish Free State’s first Taoiseach W. T.

Cosgrave and his son and future Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave, TD with General Richard

Mulcahy TD, former GHQ chief-of-staff during the Irish War of Independence and

commander-in-chief during the subsequent civil war.5 The Irish Free State government

politicians from the Fianna Fáil party and the Fine Gael opposition party attending

3 See also Introduction page 1 to page 45 for an in-depth evaluation on the purpose and context of Hayek’ s ‘Abuse and Decline of Reason’ two volume project and the proposed title of the introduction The Humility of Individualism .4 See also Mark C. Nolan’s monograph on the inaugural 1933 Finlay Lecture (Nolan 2013a).5 ‘Small Countries ‘Last Oases of Freedom’, Irish Press, Dublin, December 18th, 1945, p. 3.

5

Hayek’s 1945 lecture were certainly more focused on political matters a-la Sir Horace

Plunkett’s maxim that in Ireland, political economy was spelled with a large ’P’ and a

small ‘e’(Meenan 1967).6

The embryonic Irish Free State had remained neutral during World War Two, and the

Irish government would eventually break the last formal link with Great Britain, since the

1921 Anglo-Irish Peace Treaty by declaring a Republic in 1948 (Lee 2006: 299-301).

Between the First and Second World Wars, the Irish Free State as a Dominion of the

British Empire “enjoyed all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of a republic”

(May 1995: 302).

It had been a tough decade, from the mid 1930s to the end of World War Two, for the

embryonic Irish Free State. The six year dispute known as the ‘Economic War’, against

its largest trading partner Britain, involving the refusal to pay land annuities,7 removal of

the subjugative oath of allegiance (Crowe 2004: 4,25,31-33)8, and the removal of the

Governor-General was almost immediately followed by the rationing during the war

(Crowe 2004: 539). Eamon de Valera had been Taoiseach since 1932, the same year he

was appointed to the prestigious international role of President of, the Geneva based

Council of the League of Nations.

Six months before Hayek’s 1945 Dublin visit, de Valera, according to John J.

Horgan, had brought unfavourable international attention to Ireland due to his

“ceremonial tomfoolery”9of personally expressing formal condolences on behalf of the

Irish government to the German ambassador Dr. Edouard Hempel following Adolf

Hitler’s suicide.

Writing to the Irish ambassador in Washington two weeks later, de Valera had

justified his very deliberate visit to the German ambassador, by claiming that a failure to 6 Meenan, James (1967). Even though it appears Sir Horace Plunkett initially believed the opposite to a large ‘P’ and a small ‘e’ being applicable to Irish political economy issues. According to his paper ‘The Irish Question in a New Light’, The North American Review, Vol. 166, No.194 (Jan., 1898) pp.107-120, on page 111, Plunkett wrote that “The Irish difficulty has long been rather economic than political, and it is so more than ever today”. Twenty three years later, in his paper titled ‘Rural Regeneration’ about the economic development of the Irish agricultural co-operative movement in Ireland, in the same journal, Sir Horace Plunkett complained on page 472, that “the politicians put a spoke in our wheel.” See The North American Review, Vol. 214, No. 791 (Oct., 1921), pp. 470-476.7 Papers of Eamon de Valera (1882 -1975), University College Dublin Archives, Dublin, Ref., UCDA IE P 150/2238, p. 1-9.8 cf The Daily Mail, ‘Plain Words on The Irish Treaty’ by Winston S. Churchill MP, Tuesday March 29th ,1932, p. 8.9 ‘Ireland Re-Emerges, The Round Table, Sept., 1945, Vol. 35, Issue 140, p. 309.

6

have called on the German ambassador would have been “an act of unpardonable

discourtesy to the German nation” (Ferriter 2007: 272). Winston Churchill, in his BBC

radio victory broadcast on the 14th of May 1945, criticised Ireland’s neutrality during the

Second World War “owing to the action of Mr. de Valera, so much at variance with the

temper and instinct of thousands of Southern Irishmen”10because Britain could only use

the “the north-western approach between Ulster and Scotland through which to bring in

the means of life and to send out the forces of war.”11

In a response Irish radio broadcast three days later, de Valera very calmly outlined

the reasons why Ireland had remained neutral for the previous five years, notwithstanding

Churchill “abusing a people who have done him no harm…continuing the injustice of the

mutilation of our country”12despite that “Ireland was the only British Dominion which

exercised her right to remain neutral”13and not ignoring the fact that fifty thousand

Irishmen died in the first war believing that the Home Rule Bill of 1914, suspended for

the duration of the war, would be honoured.

The damage to Ireland’s reputation and standing in the International community still

lingered by the time of Hayek’s visit to Dublin six months later. Corkman John J.

Horgan, the Irish Correspondent of The Round Table journal contemporaneously wrote in

July 1945; “so Ireland re-emerges from the fog of war, somewhat chastened, slightly

dubious, yet not without hope.”14

Professor George O’Brien, Hayek’s host for Hayek’s 1945 Dublin visit and lecture,

had succeeded Rev. Finlay as Professor of Political Economy at University College

Dublin. O’Brien had abandoned his first career as a lawyer following a catastrophic legal

case in 1916 and he then embarked upon his first major work, The Economic History of

Ireland in the Eighteenth Century (1918)15, dedicated to his mentor the Professor of

Political Economy at University College Dublin, Rev. Thomas A. Finlay SJ. Through his 10 ‘Mr Churchill’s War Review-Five Years’ Drive To Victory-Eire’s Policy of Neutrality Criticised’, The Irish Independent, Monday 14th May, 1945, p. 3.11 Ibid., p. 312 ‘Mr De Valera Replies to Mr.Churchill-Reason for Irish Neutrality’, The Irish Independent, Thursday 17th May, 1945, p. 3.13 ‘Ireland Re-Emerges’, The Round Table, Sept., 1945, Vol. 35, Issue 140, p. 307. 14 Ibid., p. 31315 See also George O’Brien’s follow-up book on the preceding century (1919) because according to O’Brien, in page one of the introduction, the two centuries were so inextricably interwoven that “a study of one by itself seemed doomed to be incomplete, just as an examination of the lower reaches of a river would be incomplete without some study of its source.”

7

membership of the Arts Club, George O’Brien made contacts which enabled him to

switch from practice of law to academia. He had attended one of the Jesuit schools,

Belvedere College, where he first met Fr. Finlay who used to give religious retreats to

students.

Following the formation of the Irish Free State in 1922, O’Brien became a

member of various Committees, such as Banking, Fiscal and Agriculture, established to

formulate financial and agricultural policies for the new Dominion State. Between 1923

and 1947 he wrote twenty-six articles for the Irish quarterly journal, Studies including an

incisive and insightful obituary on John Maynard Keynes in 1946 (O’Brien 1946) as well

as being the Dublin correspondent for The Economist (Meenan 1980: 172).

O’Brien was vehemently anti-de Valera, and in his later years, according to his

biography written by his successor, he would boast that his 1936 book Four Green Fields

on the partition of modern Ireland,16was written “without mentioning the name of Mr. de

Valera.” Apparently O’Brien revelled in enacting Eamon de Valera searching the index

of his 1936 book, to find that his name didn’t appear under ‘d’or‘V’ (Meenan 1980: 184).

His 1936 Four Green Fields book correctly and presciently concluded that the

“settlement of the Irish question is in the hands of the Ulster ascendancy who have it in

their power to make such a settlement possible or delay it indefinitely” (O’Brien 1936:

139). In his book, O’Brien outlined how “for over seven hundred years the English have

never left the Irish peacefully alone in their own island”(O’Brien 1936: 20) and that

having conquered Ireland, it was a crime for Britain to have withdrawn from the island of

Ireland in 1921 leaving it divided.

Upon his return from his 1945 Dublin visit, Hayek is reported to have said that Dublin

had reminded him of the Vienna he had known prior to the First World War and that his

host Professor George O’Brien “had the best cellar of any professor of Political Economy

that he had ever met” (Meenan 1980: 174).

16 O’Brien cites an extract on the inside cover of his book, from W. B. Yeats’s 1902 play Cathleen Ni Houlihan, about Ireland’s struggle for independence, as her ‘four beautiful fields’ representing the four provinces of Ireland, that were unjustly taken from her. Yeats’s play was set in the West of Ireland in 1798, when a French expeditionary force had landed in Killala to help Wolfe Tone’s separatist revolutionary organisation, the United Irishmen, repel the English, but ultimately the French force were surrounded and surrendered (Jeffares 1975: 27-36).

8

O’Brien had got to know Dr. Hayek in 1943 following O’Brien’s discovery of a box

full of two sets of letters; one set containing correspondence between John Stuart Mill

and Irish economist John Elliot Cairnes the other set between David Ricardo and James

Mill (O’Brien 1943).

3. Lecture

Hayek’s seminal 1945 Dublin lecture titled ‘Individualism: True and False’ was an

example of the intersection of the disciplines of politics, philosophy and economics at a

time when each discipline was undergoing transformative change following the

conclusion of the Second World War and the onset of the Cold War. In his Dublin

lecture, Hayek undertook to set out his preferred general principle of social organisation

and social order by comparing and contrasting two opposite types of what he termed

‘Individualism’ because “the same word frequently appears to unite people who in fact

believe in contradictory and irreconcilable ideals” (1946: 5) and he asserted that no

political term had suffered worse distortion and misunderstanding by its opponents, in

this respect, than individualism.

He warned how we “should always remember that political concepts which are to-day

out of fashion are known to most of our contemporaries only through the picture drawn

of them by their enemies” (1946: 5).

To Hayek, the word socialism was originally coined in the early 19 th century by the

Saint-Simonians to describe the type of competitive society to which they were opposed

to in contrast to a centrally planned society in which all activity was controlled by a

central authority. Hayek had already written extensively in 1941 about “one of the great

landmarks in the history of socialism which deserves to be much better known outside

France than it is” (1941: 140). Saint-Simon’s nineteenth century doctrinaire solution was

for a planned society in the form of a new order where the rights of property would be

abolished overseen and directed by “a spiritual power which can choose the direction to

which the national forces are to be applied” (1946: 5, fn. 1).

In his Dublin lecture, Hayek then outlined his understanding of the historic

development of the intellectual tradition underpinning what he considered ‘true’

individualism which his University College Dublin lecture would try to defend.

9

According to Hayek, ‘true’ individualism began its modern development in the

eighteenth century Scottish Enlightenment with John Locke, Bernard Mandeville and

David Hume and was subsequently more fully developed by Josiah Tucker, Adam

Ferguson, Adam Smith and his contemporary Edmund Burke. This eighteenth century

group of writers’ most significant social, political and economic contribution is the theory

of spontaneously generated social orders.

‘Spontaneous order’ theory, which Hayek would further develop and extend in the

twentieth century, holds that the social arrangements under which we live take their form

from the unintended aggregate outcome of numerous discrete individual actions, not the

outcome of deliberate intentional design and calculation (Hamowy 2005: 3). In the

nineteenth century Hayek claimed, in his Dublin lecture, that both Alexis de Tocqueville

and Lord Acton best represented his conception of ‘true’ individualism.

The opposite type of individualism, which Hayek referred to as ‘false’ individualism,

originated, he maintained, primarily in France as Cartesian Rationalism represented by

Rousseau and the Physiocrats (1946: 6). The term individualism had been introduced to

English in 1835 through Henry Reeve’s translation of Alexis de Tocqueville’s

‘Democracy in America’ (1946: 7, fn. 5) and also aided by J. S. Mill’s comprehensive

review of Reeve’s translation in the London Review. In a footnote of his 1862

translation, Reeve apologises that he knew “of no English word exactly equivalent to the

expression” (1862: 119) that de Tocqueville had coined.

Man’s whole nature and character is determined by his existence in society

according to Hayek, who cites Professor Albert Schatz’s conclusions that individualism

isn’t based on the existence of isolated or self-contained individuals. Hayek, who had

already cited Schatz in his 1941 Economica paper (1941: I, 22), claimed that Professor

Schatz deserved to be better known (1946: 7, fn. 6). Albert Schatz (1879-1940)17 had

been a law professor at the French University of Dijon, and he had written a book on the

origins and development of Individualism which was published in 1907 and his doctorate

was on the works of David Hume (Schatz 1902).

17 See Cyrille Ferraton et Benoît Prévost’s preface in the reprint of Schatz’s book (Schatz 2013[1907]) and also see Pierre Curty’s study on the life and writings of Schatz (Curty 1995).

10

4. Fable of the Bees

In 1903 Schatz published a paper on Bernard Mandeville’s 1714 allegorical Fable of

the Bees (Mandeville 1988[1924])18 linking ‘libéralisme’ to Mandeville’s works; notably

the propositions that in matters economic individuals were principally guided by self-

interest, and acted harmoniously in a liberal society, under a political policy of abstention

by the state except as guarantor of private property and as a protector of members of

society (Schatz 1903: 440).

According to Edwin Cannan, Mandeville’s allegorical poem depicted a human

society which paradoxically prospered tremendously so long as it was full of vice until

the members of the society begged the King of the Gods, Jove, to rid their beehive of

fraud and vice except that once the beehive became virtuous, frugal and honest, trade was

forthwith ruined by the cessation of personal expenditure (Smith 1904[1798]: xliii-xlvi).

Schatz in his study of Mandeville, found that the origin of the doctrine of economic

liberalism is found “first and foremost in the psychological study of individuals living in

a society contained within the moral philosophy work of the author of the Fable of the

Bees”(Schatz 1903: 436). Furthermore, Schatz claimed that Mandeville could not be

credited with exclusively creating the new doctrine of liberalism (la doctrine libérale)

even though he considered that David Hume and Adam Smith had each in turn drawn

much inspiration from Mandeville and that some of their expressions were borrowed

from Mandeville’s Fable (Schatz 1907: 127).19 Schatz suspected that Mandeville had

been neglected in studies of the history of economic doctrines due to his acerbic irony

and his religious orthodoxy (Schatz 1903: 63). 18 Dutch Medical Doctor and philosopher Bernard Mandeville’s work originally published anonymously on the 2nd of April 1705 as a six-penny pamphlet consisting of a four hundred line poem called The Grumbling Hive: or Knaves Turn’d Honest, (Kaye 1921: 425). In 1714 he added more prose and a new title The Fable of the Bees: or Private Vices, Public Benefits; with an Essay on Charity and Charity Schools and a Search into the Nature of Society. In 1729 Mandeville further added a Part Two consisting of six dialogues and a final 1732 edition before he died in January 1733. Because Mandeville’s Fable was published in two parts at different times, F. B. Kaye’s edition of the Fable two centuries later would use the 1732 text in volume one and the text of the 1729 edition in volume two including notes listing all significant variations in the different editions that were issued during Mandeville’s lifetime (Mandeville 1988[1924]: I, ix).19 In his 1966 London lecture on Mandeville Hayek, echoing Schatz, claimed that Mandeville made Hume possible and how, through Hume, Mandeville exercised his most lasting influence (Hayek 1978: 264).

11

According to Schatz, Mandeville’s Fable claimed how, due to self-interest, individuals

always resorted to division of labour in order to reduce their own efforts which Schatz

described as the principle of spontaneous adaptation - “spontané d’adaptation” (Schatz

1907: 74).

Hayek identified Mandeville’s Fable as the source of the theory of ‘spontaneous

order’ and furthermore he acknowledged the influence of Schatz’s studies on Mandeville

in formulating his own theory of ‘spontaneous order’.20 Earlier in the twentieth century,

Schatz had already claimed that the important origins of individualism could be found in

Mandeville’s Fable-“Tel est dans sa composition externe l’ouvrage capital où se trouvent

tous les germes essentiels de la philosophie économique et sociale de l’individualisme”

(Schatz 1907: 62).

Schatz outlined the evolution of the eighteenth century realisation that regulated

“artificial” economic order could be substituted by “un ordre naturel économique”

underpinned by the solid foundation of a rare phenomena called “cet ordre spontané”

(this spontaneous order) whose “majestic simplicity and harmonious splendour has not

yet been fully revealed except by a few discerning thinkers” (Schatz 1907: 32).

5. French connection(s)

This section of Schatz’s 1907 book could, I consider, be the inspiration for Hayek

coining the term for his ‘spontaneous order’ theory as he owned a copy of Schatz’s 1907

book that is still held in his personal library collection.21 Additionally, a reference in

Schatz’s 1907 book is probably the source of inspiration for the title of his 1945 Dublin

lecture. We know that Hayek told his Dublin audience that he was much indebted to

Schatz’s book as a contribution to both individualism and to the history of economic

20 Edwin Cannan (1861-1935), an eminent historian of economic thought at Hayek’s LSE, first championed Mandeville in his thirty six page editor’s introduction to the 1904 reprint of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Cannan posited that Adam Smith originally obtained the belief that self-interest worked for the benefit of the whole economic community from his study of Mandeville a writer who, according to Cannan, has had little justice done to him in histories of economics (Smith 1904[1798]: xliii-xlvi). Cannan had further outlined how Adam Smith in his Moral Sentiments had concluded that the economic and social system described by Mandeville would not have elicited such a response from so many “had it not in some way bordered upon the truth” (Smith 1904[1798]: xlvi). 21 Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, Fakultätsbibliothek Rechtwissenschaften, Hayek Personal Library, Salzburg Österreich, Shelfmark No. 642.

12

theory (1946: 7, fn. 6) and he conceivably could have borrowed Schatz’s use of the term

“le principe d’ordre spontané” for his own ‘spontaneous order’ theory.

Hayek had already admitted in his Dublin lecture to borrowing de Tocqueville’s

“formule de la servitude” (Tocqueville 1878: 541) phrase to use as the title for The Road

to Serfdom (1946: 16, fn. 16).

In a footnote cited on page 558 in the concluding chapter of Schatz’s 1907 book that

Hayek had quoted in his 1945 Dublin lecture, Schatz recommended reading a 1899

Journal des Economistes paper by Henry-Léon (Schatz 1907: 558).

It is probably more likely that the origination and inspiration of the title of Hayek’s

1945 Finlay Memorial lecture emanated from sources that Hayek cites and also from

references contained within his 1945 Finlay Memorial lecture. In addition to Henry-Léon

Follin’s 1899 paper, possibly being an inspiration for the title of Hayek’s Dublin lecture,

there is another supplementary possibility namely John Stuart Mill’s 1861 essay Of True

and False Democracy (1904: 131-154), which could be considered as an alternative

inspiration for Hayek’s title ‘Individualism: True and False’.

In his 1861 essay Mill asserted that proportional representation ensures minorities are

adequately represented in contrast to plurality voting. Without minorities being

represented, there is “nothing but a false show of democracy”, Mill claimed (1904: 138).

Mill queried why the majority ought to prevail over the minority and why it is necessary

that the minority should not even be heard (1904: 133). Mill had quoted Alexis de

Tocqueville’s 1835 insight that “for he who to-day is not in the majority will perhaps

form part of it tomorrow” (Mill 1835a: 128). In his 1945 Dublin lecture, Hayek

concurred with de Tocqueville’s insight, which Mill had in turn quoted, in his 1945

Dublin lecture. Hayek disagreed with the common view at the time, that government

aims had to reflect the views of the majority;

“On the contrary, the whole justification of democracy rests on the fact that in

course of time what is today the view of a small minority may become the

majority view”(1946: 30).

The formation of Mill’s true and false democracy theme first began in his 1835

review of the first volume of Alexis de Tocqueville’s examination of the state of society

and democracy in America. De Tocqueville’s seminal book was based on a nine month

13

trip across America with his friend Gustave de Beaumont, from May 1831 to February

1832.

The first volume of de Tocqueville’s book was reviewed in 1835 by Mill in his

London Review journal, co-incidently following de Tocqueville’s and de Beaumont’s six

week tour of Ireland in August 1835 (1990). In his London Review, Mill wrote that de

Tocqueville’s book, “has at once taken its rank among the most remarkable productions

of our time” (1835a: 94). In his 1835 London Review of the first volume of de

Tocqueville’s book,- Mill was also to review the second volume five years later in The

Edinburgh Review(1841) - Mill concentrated on the distinction between true and false

democracy (Burns 1957: 166).

Under true democracy, de Tocqueville stated that people must be able to hold their

representative rulers responsible for results and the people must be able to dismiss their

rulers if their elected rulers do not exercise their knowledge and their ability for the good

of the people (1835a: 110). If people abuse their entitlement to remove rulers by using it

as a means to interfere in order to make their legislators mere delegates for their vested

interests, Mill termed this type of behaviour as false democracy (1835a: 111).

In his London Review of de Tocqueville’s ‘On Democracy in America’, Mill advised

his readers, that five months earlier, he had already examined “the difference between the

true and the false idea of a representative democracy”(Mill 1835a: 109-110) in an earlier

London Review article, Mill enthused that de Tocqueville’s book was the first

philosophical book ever to be written on democracy, and that de Tocqueville’s book

constitutes “the beginning of a new era in the scientific study of politics”(1841: 3).

Hugh Brogan, de Tocquville’s 2006 biographer, considers de Tocqueville’s theory of

individualism “perhaps the most purely original notion that he ever formed” (Brogan

2006: 355).

Hayek was a great admirer of Schatz’s l’individualisme éconimique et social whom

he told to his Dublin audience deserved to be better known (1946: 34, fn. 6). Four

decades later he would accept an offer from Albert Schatz’s son Jacques Schatz to write

the preface for a proposed publication of l’individualisme éconimique et social in

English.22 At the time of his Dublin visit, we know Hayek was researching Mill’s 22 See the 1983-84 correspondence between Hayek and Jacques Schatz on the proposed publication of an English translation of his father’s 1907 l’individualisme éconimique et social with the preface to be written

14

writings. Mill in turn, seems to have based his true and false democracy writings on

opinions formed from Alex de Tocqueville’s examination of American democracy.

Indeed, Alexis de Tocqueville’s ‘formule de la servitude’ phrase had even provided

the inspiration for the title of Hayek’s 1944 Road to Serfdom book which Hayek, in his

1945 Dublin lecture acknowledged for the first time that it was de Tocqueville’s phrase

“which suggested to me the title of a recent book of mine”(1946: 16, fn.16).

Fifty years later, Hayek was to explain how he didn’t like the sound of the direct

translation of de Tocqueville’s phrase- the road to servitude- so he “changed ‘servitude’

into ‘serfdom’ for merely phonetic reasons” (Ebenstein 2001: 116). In his Dublin lecture,

Hayek outlined the different interpretations of the term ‘individualism’ similar to de

Tocqueville’s famous description, from his 1848 address to the French Constitutional

Assembly during a debate on the contentious issue of the right to work.

In his 1848 address to the French Constitutional Assembly, de Tocqueville had

insightfully and incisively described the different interpretation of the common word

‘equality’ by both democrats and socialists, equality in liberty and equality in servitude

respectively (1878: 546).

In his speech to the French Constitutional Assembly, de Tocqueville had utilised the

same expositional technique of outlining the different interpretations of the same word to

argue his point and affirm the ‘true’ etymological meaning of the word democracy

“quelle est l’etymologie vraie de ce mot démocratie” (1878: 544) as Hayek would use a

century later in his 1945 Dublin lecture to outline the different interpretations of

individualism.

We now know that Hayek was familiar with de Tocqueville’s 1848 speech to the

French Constitutional Assembly because a section of de Tocqueville’s speech was the

original source for the title of Hayek’s 1944 Road to Serfdom (1946: 16, fn.16).

The format and style of Alexis de Tocqueveille’s 1848 speech to the French

Constitutional Assembly, combined with Hayek’s knowledge of de Tocqueville’s

chapters on individualism in the second volume of his ‘On Democracy’, as Hayek

outlined in his Dublin lecture (1946: 7, fn. 5) no doubt aided by Mill’s comprehensive

and enthusiastic reviews in the London Review and the Edinburgh Review, could also

by Hayek held in Box 48, Folder 13 of the Friedrich A. Von Hayek Collection, The Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford University, CA.

15

possibly be considered the inspiration for the title of Hayek’s 1945 Dublin lecture (Nolan

2013b: 61-64).

Hayek also warned in his 1945 Dublin lecture, that ‘true’ individualism affirms the

value of the family and all the common efforts of the small community and group

whereas ‘false’ individualism wants to impose coercive rules by the state and to make all

social ties prescriptive (1946: 23).

The confusion, Hayek told his Dublin audience, between the different interpretations

of individualism commenced when the classical economists of the nineteenth century

such as Mill and Herbert Spencer who were almost as much influenced by the French

(‘false’) tradition as by the English (‘true’) tradition. This led to all sorts of conceptions

and assumptions, completely alien to ‘true’ individualism, being regarded as essential

parts of the doctrine of individualism (1946: 10).

6. Equality

In his 1945 Dublin lecture, Hayek acknowledged the mistaken common belief that

individualism approves and encourages human selfishness (1946: 13) whereas his

definition of individualism is that people “ought to be allowed to strive for whatever

‘they’ think desirable” (1946: 15). A year earlier in his Road to Serfdom, Hayek had

already written how the fundamental premise of individualism was based on the fact that

man can only be aware of a limited number of matters, so that man isn’t subject to any

dictation or coercion by others. In summary, Hayek claimed that the essence of the

individualist position is the recognition of individual man;

“as the ultimate judge of his ends, the belief that, as far as possible, his own

views ought to govern his action” (1946: 18).

Under Hayek’s concept of ‘true’ individualism, governments should be configured to

make rules which inform the individual as to the sphere of responsibility within which an

individual may shape his own life rather that a government by orders that attempts to

impose specific duties on individuals. In other words, “government should be confined

to making the individuals observe principles which they know and can take into account

in their decisions” rather than a government expediently decreeing, in an absolute

manner, what is to be “the interests of society” (1946: 18, 19)..

16

These rules or principles in turn should be designed to remain valid for long periods

because the rules and principles serve “as signposts to the individuals in making their

own plans” (1946: 24) in a social process where the individual has choice between

alternatives, even if some of them are unpleasant, rather than a society where the

individual is coerced to choose what the government decrees (1946: 28).

Hayek decried political structures where the concentration of all decisions in the

hands of an all-powerful central government, ostensibly to provide stability and order,

leaves a society without the capacity to spontaneously evolve and develop its own

differentiations due to society’s “dependence on a power which deliberately moulds and

shapes it” (1946: 28).

In his Road to Serfdom Hayek believed in leaving each individual to find his own

level, under a social and legal framework underpinned by equal applicability of rules to

all- equal in the complete and absolute sense rather than in the ‘greater equality’ sense of

socialism23- because as he elaborated in his Dublin lecture; only that “men are in fact

unequal can we treat them equally”(1946: 15) otherwise, if men were completely equal in

their abilities we should have to treat them differently to achieve any sort of cohesive

social organisation.

“There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and

attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society,

the second means, as de Tocqueville described it, ‘a new from of

servitude’”(1946: 16).

According to Hayek, another misleading common belief in the rational ‘false’

individualism is the presumption that each person knows his or her interests best whereas

Hayek’s “argument is that nobody can know ‘who’ knows best, and that the only way by

which we can find out is through a social process in which everybody is allowed to try

and see what he can do” and that “they ought to be allowed to strive for whatever they

think desirable”(1946: 15) and that it is better that individuals have choice as,

“..it is better to have a choice between several unpleasant alternatives than being

coerced into one”(1946: 24).

23 Hayek, F. A., “The Road to Serfdom”, George Routledge & Sons, London, 1944, reprint 2007, p.113-114

17

Six decades later there is still misleading interpretations and assumptions about

individualism. Ireland’s President, Micheal D. Higgins in his 2012 speech delivered at

the London School of Economics criticised the myth of rational markets. President

Higgins denounced what he considered the extreme individualism of recent decades

based on the influence of the ideas of theorists such as Friedrich Von Hayek.24 Five

months previously, as a presidential candidate, President Higgins had referred to

individualism as a corrosive deadly vision.25

Despite Hayek’s best efforts in his 1945 Dublin lecture to differentiate the two

traditions of thought by tracing the original source of the confusion between the two

types of individualism, each bearing the same name but divided by fundamentally

opposed principles, the confusion between Hayek’s ‘true’ individualism and the rational

‘false’ individualism continues.

Hayek informed his Dublin audience in 1945 that ‘true’ individualism, was at any rate

the only kind of individualism which he was prepared to defend, and indeed he believed,

‘true’ individualism was the only kind which could be defended consistently (1946: 32).

7. ‘Spontaneous order’

In the second seminal concept outlined in his 1945 Dublin lecture, Hayek described

how many of society’s social and political institutions developed without a central

designing and directing mind quoting Adam Ferguson’s eighteenth century maxim that:

“nations stumble upon establishments, which are indeed the result of human

action but not the result of human design” (1946: 8).

This Adam Ferguson insight, even though it was slightly modified by Hayek to make

it easier to understand, (Hayek 2010: 53, fn. 14) was to play a crucial part in development

of Hayek’s central idea of spontaneous order, originally formulated by the Scottish

Enlightenment thinker, Adam Ferguson. Hayek argued that the knowledge requisite for

the structure of the social, political legal and economic institutions under which we live is

far too complex to be comprehended by any single mind or group of minds because these

institutions evolve over time without any deliberate design (Hamowy 2005: xii).

24 Higgins, Micheal, D., President of Ireland, Public Intellectuals, Universities, and a Democratic Crisis, LSE European Institute, 21st February, 2012. 25 Nihill, Cían, ‘Higgins Critical of ‘Corrosive’Ethos of Individualism’, The Irish Times, October, 6th, 2011.

18

In his Dublin lecture, Hayek described how “spontaneous collaboration of free men

often creates things which are greater than their individual minds can ever fully

comprehend”(1946: 8), the classical political economy theme commenced by Josiah

Tucker, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson and Edmund Burke. Hayek claimed that ‘true’

individualism believes social processes evolve best if man is left free, where man will

“often achieve more than individual human reason could design or foresee”(1946: 11). In

his 1767 Essay on the History of Civil Society, Ferguson had cited the axiom as

originating from Cardinal de Retz’s Memoirs (Ferguson 1767: part III, sec. II, 183).

The late eighteenth century Ferguson maxim actually refers to the preceding

seventeenth century remark ascribed to Oliver Cromwell by Cardinal de Retz in his

memoirs about how “we are mounting highest when we ourselves do not know whither

we are going” (De Retz 2010[1896]: 264) which Hayek was to acknowledge in a footnote

twenty years after delivering his lecture in Dublin (1967: 96, fn.1).

In the late eighteenth century, Ferguson was to rely on Cromwell’s seventeenth

century maxim, originally quoted in Cardinal de Retz’s memoirs. Ferguson had used the

Cromwell maxim to outline how he believed that “no government is copied from a plan”

(Ferguson 1767: 183) whereas de Retz upon learning of Cromwell’s maxim had said

“that I abhor Cromwell; and whatever is commonly reported of his great parts, if he is of

this opinion I must pronounce him a fool” (De Retz 2010[1896]: 264).

This assessment of Oliver Cromwell by Cardinal de Retz is a sentiment that most in

Hayek’s 1945 Dublin audience would have agreed and found favour with, due to

Cromwell’s brutal 1649 ‘sojourn’ in Ireland.

Ferguson, like Hayek, understood that social change was as result of unintended

human action and in his writings Ferguson deprecated any theories that placed excessive

focus on ‘great legislators’(Smith 2007: 65).

The notion of spontaneously generated social orders developed by Ferguson was

incorporated by David Hume and Adam Smith into their explanations of the origin of

complex social structures (Hamowy 2005 39).26

Since the dawn of history, intellectuals with varying degrees of success have tried to

explain and understand the nature and meaning of society and its social order. During the

26 See also chapter 3, pages 10-22 (Hamowy 2005).

19

Scottish Enlightenment of the late eighteenth century, thinkers such as Adam Smith,

Ferguson and Hume began to formulate a new theory that social order was the result of

unintended human action rather than the result of some superior being’s conscious

design.

Ferguson insightfully observed that language also constituted a perfect example of

ordered social structure that evolved without deliberate design “and without the

intervention of uncommon genius, mankind” (Ferguson 1792: 43).

According to Barry Norman, the classic example of spontaneous order is the free

market economy in which the co-ordination of the aims and purposes of countless actors

is achieved by the mechanism of prices (Barry 1992: 10).

8. Conclusion

The Cartesian school’s belief in an elite knowing best, deciding and designing social

and economic processes for society is, according to Hayek, ‘false’ individualism, which

Hayek illustrated by quoting Descartes’s passage from part II of Discourse on Method,

that “there is seldom so much perfection in works composed of many separate parts, upon

which different hands had been employed, as in those completed by a single master”

(1946: 9).27

The key characteristic of the ‘true’ anti-rationalistic type of individualism that Hayek

defends in his Finlay Memorial Lecture is that “it is primarily a theory of society, an

attempt to understand the forces which determine the social life of man” (1946: 7).

Hayek concluded his insightful and seminal 1945 Twelfth Finlay Memorial Lecture

by reminding his Dublin audience that society is greater than the individual only in so far

as society is free, rather than been controlled or directed by a central authority (1946: 32)

that decides and determines what is to be “the interests of society”(1946: 19). .

Two decades later Hayek would further develop this theme when in his 1974 Noble

Prize lecture he would warn his Stockholm audience that man must guard against trying

to control and manipulate civilisation,

27 In a New York Times Magazine article six months before his Dublin lecture, Hayek was weighed down by the development toward all-controlling state power and he claimed that the century “from 1848 to 1948 will probably come to be known as the century of Socialist delusion” (1945: 25).

20

“..which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of

millions of individuals” (Hayek 1974).

In his Dublin lecture, Hayek was continuing his Road to Serfdom theme that “a policy

of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy”(2007[1944]: 246),

freedom of individuals as members of society as opposed to the ‘collective freedom’ of

totalitarian politicians offering “the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society

what he pleases”(2007[1944]: 162). Hayek described how central planners denied

individuals freedom by restricting freedom to “the good and the wise” (1946: 12, fn. 14)

of ‘false’ individualism or as Hayek’s mentor Ludwig Von Mises answered to the

question whether individuals plan for themselves or that a government exclusively plan

for all individuals, “it is freedom versus government omnipotence” (Von Mises

2008[1949]: 726).

Hayek’s profoundly insightful 1945 Dublin exposition of ‘true’ individualism in

comparison to the fundamentally different ‘false’ individualism and his development of

spontaneous order theory in his lecture, is an example of a man sharing his exploration of

using theory as an apparatus of the mind, a sort of early manifesto for neoliberals.

In his 2011 introduction essay in the definitive edition of Hayek’s Constitution of

Liberty, Ronald Hamowy declared that Hayek’s insights into the nature of social

organisation and how the complexity of institutions “put them beyond the ability of any

one mind or group of minds to comprehend or design pervades all of Hayek’s social

theory” (Hayek 2011: 5). Therefore significantly, I consider that it was in Dublin in

December 1945 where Hayek first outlined his insights into the nature of social and

political organisation and how they evolve spontaneously underpinned by his ‘true’

individualism that treats everyone equally rather than trying to make them equal.

Hayek’s 1945 lecture was a defence of ‘true’ individualism, an early example of

Hayek’s pervading social theory insight that helped him explain the origins of complex

social, political and economic structures, “which have not been designed or understood

by any individual and are indeed greater than individual minds”(Hayek 1946: 32).

Hayek’s lecture outlined the origins, evolution and the fundamental role of ‘true’

individualism in a free society which he asserted “is primarily a ‘theory’ of society, an

attempt to understand the forces which determine the social life of man, and only in the

21

second instance a set of political maxims derived from this view of society” (Hayek

1946: 7) is as valid today in the second decade of the twenty-first century as it was in the

preceding three centuries since Mandeville’s 1714 Fable of the Bees.

Undoubtedly Hayek’s interpretation of Schatz’s study of Mandeville’s allegorical

Fable - that anticipated Ferguson’s maxim that society’s social and political institutions

were “indeed the result of human action but not the execution of human design”

(Ferguson1767: 183) - helped him develop and formulate his own ‘spontaneous order’

theory. I consider Ferguson’s maxim as the bedrock assumption underpinning Hayek’s

‘spontaneous order’ theory that is in-turn the touchstone of ‘true’ individualism.

Hayek’s great question, posed to his 1945 Dublin audience was whether individuals’

minds will be allowed to continue to grow, in a free society, as a result of their

cumulative unintended actions rather than being centrally controlled or directed by

governments (Hayek 1946: 32).

What Hayek’s ‘true’ individualism “teaches us is that society is greater than the

individual only in so far as it is free” (Hayek 1946: 32) a far-reaching maxim that

followed a tradition of thought of other deeply aware political thinkers in a direct line

from Bernard Mandeville to Adam Smith to Alexis de Tocqueville continuing through to

Albert Schatz and onwards to Hayek himself.

22

References

Barry, Norman 1992. The Tradition of Spontaneous Order, Literature of Liberty, Vol. V,

No., 2, Summer 1992, pp.7-58.

Brogan, Hugh 2006. Alexis de Tocqueville: Prophet of Democracy in the Age of

Revolution, London, Profile Books Ltd.

Burns, J. H. 1957. J. S. Mill and Democracy, 1829-61, Part I, Political Studies, Vol.V,

No.2 (1957), pp.158-175.

Caldwell, Bruce 2004. Hayek’s Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F. A. Hayek,

Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Crowe, Catriona et al, 2004. Documents on Irish Foreign Policy, Vol. IV 1932-1936,

Dublin, Royal Irish Academy

Curty, Pierre 1995. Un économiste individualiste anti-conformiste: Albert Schatz (1879-

1940), Mémoire de DEA, Lyon, Université Lumiére Lyon 2.

De Retz, Jean François Paul de Condi 2010[1896]. Memoirs of the Cardinal De Retz:

Containing all the Great Events During The Minority of Louis XIV, translated from the

French, H. S. Nichols, London, 1896, reprint La Vergne, USA, 2010.

De Tocqueville, Alexis 1990. Alexis de Tocqueville’s Journey in Ireland, translated and

edited by Emmet Larkin, Washington D.C., The Catholic University of America Press.

De Tocqueville, Alexis 1878. Etudes Economiques Politiques et Litteraires: IX, Calmann

Lévy, Éditeur, 12th edition, Paris, Ancienne Maison Michel Lévy Frères.

De Tocqueville, Alexis 1862. Democracy in America, translated by Henry Reeve, Vol.1

of 2, edited and revised by Francis Bowen Server and Francis, Cambridge.

De Tocqueville Alexis, “Democracy in America”, translated by Henry Reeve, Vol. 2 of 2,

edited and revised by Francis Bowen Server and Francis, Cambridge, 1862.

Durbin, E.F.M. 1945. Professor Hayek on Economic Planning and Liberty, The

Economic Journal, Vol. 55, No. 220, (Dec., 1945),pp. 357-370.

Ebenstein, Alan 2001. Friedrich Hayek: A Biography, New York,Palgrave.

Ferguson, Adam 1767. An Essay on the History of Civil Society, Dublin, Boulter

Grierson.

Ferguson, Adam 1792. Principles of Moral and Political Science,Volume I , Edinburgh ,

1792,Vol.1.

23

Ferriter, Diarmaid 2007. Judging Dev: A Reassessment of the Life and Legacy of Eamon

de Valera, Dublin, Royal Irish Academy.

Gardiner, Samuel R. 2005[1905]. History of the Great Civil War 1642-1649 Volume 3

1645-1647, facsimile of edition published by Longmans, Green & Co, 1905, Elibron

Classics.

Hamowy, Ronald 2005. The Political Sociology of Freedom: Adam Ferguson and F. A.

Hayek, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham.

Hayek F. A. 1941. The Counter-Revolution of Science Part I, Economica, Vol. VIII, No.

20, February, 1941, pp. 9-36.

Hayek, F. A. 1941. The Counter-Revolution of Science Part III, Economica, Vol.VIII,

No.30, August, 1941, pp. 119-150.

Hayek F. A. 1944. The Road to Serfdom, London, George Routledge & Sons.

Hayek, F.A. 1945. Tomorrow’s World: Is it Going Left ? No, Says Dr. Hayek, not if

Believers in Individual Freedom Realize the Stakes, The New York Times Magazine, June

24th, 1945, p.12 and p. 25.

Hayek F. A. 2007. The Collected Works of F. A Hayek, Volume II, The Road to Serfdom,

Text and Documents, The Definitive Edition, edited by Bruce Caldwell, London, The

University of Chicago Press, Routledge.

Hayek, F. A. 1946. Individualism: True and False, Dublin, Hodges Figgis & Co.

Hayek, F.A. 1974. The Pretence of Knowledge, Lecture to the Memory of Alfred Noble,

Stockholm, 11th December, 1974.

Hayek, F. A. 1967. Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, London, Routledge &

Kegan Paul Ltd.

Hayek, F. A. 1978. New Studies in Phlosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of

Ideas. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Hayek, F. A. 1980[1948]. ‘The Facts of The Social Sciences’ in Individualism and

Social Order, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Hayek, F. A. 2007[1944]. The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek Volume II The Road to

Serfdom: Text and Documents, The Definitive Edition, editor Bruce Caldwell, Chicago,

University of Chicago Press.

24

Hayek, F. A. 2010. The Collected Works of F.A.Hayek Volume XIII Studies on the Abuse

and Decline of Reason: Text and Documents, editor Bruce Caldwell, Chicago, University

of Chicago Press.

Hayek, F. A. 2011. The Collected Works of F.A.Hayek, VolumeXVII , The Constitution

of Liberty, The Definitive Edition, edited by Ronald Hamowy, Chicago, The University of

Chicago Press.

Hazlitt, Henry 1944. An Economist’s View of Planning, The New York Times Book

Review, Section 7, Sept. 24th.

Henry-Léon, M. 1899. Quelle est la Veritable Definition de l’individualisme? Journal

des Economistes, Vol. 38, (Apr-Jun), 1899, pp.1-18.

James, Alan 2006. The Origins of French Absolutism 1598-1661, Harlow, UK, Pearson

Education Ltd.

Jeffares A. and N. and Knowland A. S. 1975. A Commentary on the Collected Plays of

W. B. Yeats, London, The Macmillan Press.

Jewkes, John 1952. Where True Economic Security Lies, Seventeenth Finlay Memorial

Lecture, Dublin, University College Dublin, 17th October, 1952.

Kaye, F. B. 1921. The Writings of Bernard Mandeville: A Biographical Survey, The

Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 20, (1921), 419-467.

Keynes, John M. (1933). ‘National Self-Sufficiency’, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review,

Vo., 22, No. 86 (Jun., 1933), pp. 177-193.

Lee, J. J. 2006. Ireland 1912-1985 Politics and Society, Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press, eleventh printing.

Mandeville, Bernard, de 1988[1924]. The Fable of The Bees, or Private Vices, Publick

Benefits, with a commentary Critical, Historical ,and Explanatory, by Frederick

Benjamin Kaye, Vol. I & II. Indianapolis, Liberty Fund Inc.

London, Macmillan, 1925, reprint, New York, Augustus M. Kelley, 1966.

May, Alexander C. 1995. The Round Table, 1910-66, D.Phil., Oxford, St. John’s

College, Oxford University.

McRedmond, Louis 1991. To The Greater Glory: A History of the Irish Jesuits, Dublin,

Gill and Macmillan.

25

Meenan, James 1967. ‘From Free Trade to Self-Sufficiency’ From the Thomas Davis

Lecture series – The Years of the Great Test 1926-39, Dublin, The Mercier Press

Meenan, James 1980. George O’Brien: A Biographical Memoir, Dublin, Gill and

MacmillanLtd.

Mill, John Stuart 1 904. Considerations on Representative Government, London, Parker,

Son, and Bourn.

Mill, John Stuart 1835b. The Rational of Political Representation, London Review,Vol.,I,

July, 1835, pp. 341-371. See also pages 15-45, Essays on Politics and Society, Editor J.

M. Robson, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.

Mill, John Stuart 1835a. De Tocqueville on Democracy in America, London Review,

Vol. 2, Oct., 1835, pp. 85-128.

Mill, John Stuart 1841. Democracy in America, The Edinburgh Review, Vol. 72, No.165,

Oct.1840 –Jan 1841, pp.1-47.

Mill, John Stuart 1870. Chapters and Speeches on the Irish Land Question, London,

Longhams, Green, Reader and Dyer.

Mirowski, Philip 2009. The Road From Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Neoliberal

Thought Collective, ed Mirowski, Philip and Plehwe, Dieter, Cambridge MA, Harvard

University Press.

Nolan, Mark C. 2013a. Keynes in Dublin: Exploring the 1933 Finlay Lecture, Cork,

Inspire.

Nolan, Mark C. 2013b. Hayek’s 1945 Finlay Memorial Lecture: Tracing the Origins and

Evolution of his ‘True’ Individualism, The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 26, No.

1, pp. 53-71.

O’Brien, George 1918. The Economic History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century,

Dublin, Maunsel & Co. Ltd.

O’Brien, George 1919. The Economic History of Ireland in the seventeenth Century,

Dublin, Maunsel & Co. Ltd.

O’Brien, George 1943. J. S. Mill and J. E. Cairnes, Economica, Vol. 10, No. 40 (Nov.,

1943), pp. 273-285.

O’Brien, George 1936. The Four Green Fields, Dublin, The Talbot Press Ltd.

26

O’Brien, George 1940. ‘Father Thomas A. Finlay, SJ 1848-1940’, Studies: an Irish

Quarterly Review, Vol. 29, No.113 (Mar., 1940), pp. 27-40.

O’Brien, George 1946. John Maynard Keynes, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review,Vol.

35, No.138, (Jun., 1946), pp.188-198.

Ohlin, Bertil 1934. The Mechanism of Expansion, the Second Finlay Lecture, Dublin,

University College Dublin, 16th May, 1934.

Plehwe, Dieter, Introduction, in The Road From Mont Pelerin: The Making of the

Neoliberal Thought Collective, ed Mirowski, Philip and Plehwe, Dieter, Harvard

University Press, Cambridge MA, 2009

Roucloux, Joël 2006. Les Cinqs Périodes de l’individualisme Savant, Revue du Mauss,

Vol.27, No. 1.

Salaman, Redcliffe N. 1943. The Infleunce of the Potato on the Course of Irish History,

The Tenth Finlay Memorial Lecture, University College Dublin, 27 th Oct.,1943, Dublin,

Browne & Nolan Ltd.

Salmon, J. H. M. 1969. Cardinal de Retz: The Anatomy of a Conspirator, London, The

Macmillan Company, London

Schatz, Albert 1902. L’ouvre économique de David Hume. Paris, Linaire Nouvelle de

Droit et de Jurisprudence, Arthur Rousseau, editor.

Schatz, Albert 1903. Bernard de Mandeville. Contribution á l’étude des origins du

libéralisme économique, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1. Bd.,

H. 3 / 4: 434-480.

Schatz, Albert 1907. L’individualisme Economique et Social: Ses Origines-Son

Evolution ses Formés Contemporaines, Paris, Libraire Armand Colin.

Schatz, Albert 2013[1907]. L’individualisme Economique et Social: Ses Origines-Son

Evolution ses Formés Contemporaines, préfacé par Cyrille Ferraton et Benoît Prévost,

Paris, Société d’édition les Belles Lettres, Bibliothéque Classique de la Liberté.

Smith, Adam 1904[1798]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of

Nations, edited, with a summary and an introduction, notes, marginal summary and an

enlarged index by Edwin Cannan. London, Methuen & Co.

27

Smith, Craig 2007. Ferguson and the Active Genius of Mankind, chapter ten, in ‘Adam

Ferguson: History, Progress and Human Nature’, edited Eugene Heath and Vincenzo

Merolle, London, Pickering & Chatto (Publishers) Ltd.

Thomas, Norman 1945. Hayek, Socialism and Freedom, Common Sense, New York, Vol.

XIV, No. 4, May 1945, pp. 38-41.

Tribe, Keith 2009. ‘Liberalism and Neoliberalism in Britain, 1930-1980’, chapter two in

The Road From Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective, ed

Mirowski, Philip and Plehwe, Dieter, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press,

Cambridge.

Von Mises, Ludwig 2008[1949]. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Ludwig von

Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama, originally published scholar’ edition, 1949, 1998,

reprint 2008.

28