Friedrich Hayek on David Hume

“Hume has come closer to a critique of rationalism than any other author I kn[o]w. Again and again I've found in Hume statements of ideas which I had already independently arrived at. I am impressed especially with Hume's account of the formation of social institutions of all kinds.”

“Hume gives us probably the only comprehensive statement of the legal and political philosophy which later became known as liberalism... Hume's History did probably as much to spread Whig liberalism throughout Europe in the eighteenth century as Macaulay's History did in the nineteenth.”

“Hume not only laid in his philosophical work the foundation of the liberal theory of law, but in his History of England (1754–62) also provided an interpretation of English history as the gradual emergence of the Rule of Law which made the conception known far beyond the limits of Britain.”

“Hume came close to an evolutionary interpretation, even perceiving that 'no form can persist unless it possesses those powers and organs necessary for its subsistence: some new order or economy must be tried and so on, without intermission; till at last some order which can support and maintain itself, is fallen upon'; and that man cannot 'pretend to an exemption from the lot of all living animals [because the] perpetual war among all living creatures' must go on (1779/1886:11, 429, 436). As has been well said, he practically recognised that 'there is a third category between natural and artificial which shares certain characteristics with both' (Haakonssen, 1981:24).”

“The great sceptic, with his profound conviction of the imperfection of all human reason and knowledge, did not expect much positive good from political organisation. He knew that the greatest political goods, peace, liberty, and justice, were in their essence negative, a protection against injury rather than positive gifts. No man strove more ardently for peace, liberty and justice. But Hume clearly saw that the further ambitions which wanted to establish some other positive justice on earth were a threat to those values... It was not from the goodness of men but from institutions which "made it the interest even of bad men, to act for the public good" that he expected peace, liberty, and justice. He knew that "every man must be supposed a knave"; though, as he adds, "it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics which is false in fact."”

“It is...in his analysis of the circumstances which determined the evolution of the chief legal institutions, in which he shows why a complex civilisation could grow up only where certain types of legal institutions developed, that he makes some of his most important contributions to jurisprudence. In the discussion of these problems his economic and his legal and political theory are intimately connected. Hume is indeed one of the few social theorists who are clearly aware of the connection between the rules men obey and the order which is formed as a result... What he undertakes is to show that certain characteristics of modern society which we prize are dependent on conditions which were not created in order to bring about these results, yet are nevertheless their indispensable presuppositions. They are institutions "advantageous to the public though...not intended for that purpose by the inventors". Hume shows, in effect, that an orderly society can develop only if men learn to obey certain rules of conduct.”

“Hume noticed clearly the connection of these doctrines to freedom, and how the maximum freedom of all requires equal restraints on the freedom of each through what he called the three 'fundamental laws of nature': 'the stability of possession, of its transference by consent, and of the performance of promises' (1739/1886:11, 288, 293). [...] Hume may have been the first clearly to perceive that general freedom becomes possible by the natural moral instincts being `checked and restrained by a subsequent judgement' according to 'justice, or a regard to the property of others, fidelity, or the observance of promises [which have] become obligatory, and acquire[d] an authority over mankind' (1741, 1742/1886:111, 455). Hume did not make the error, later so common, of confusing two senses of freedom: that curious sense in which an isolated individual is supposed to be able to be free, and that in which many persons collaborating with one another can be free. Seen in the latter context of such collaboration, only abstract rules of property - i.e., the rules of law - guarantee freedom.”