I’m currently reading Hayek’s “The Constitution of Liberty” again and finding more and more gems that I either forgot about or did not notice on first reading. In that book he also presents the idea of continuous evolution a society as opposed to willfull design.
In chapter four he expands that the only way sustaining progress in society’s institution is only possible with very small improvements that prove useful or not. These small improvements cumulate over time and lead to overall changes in society, be it the money that is used (one recalls Mises’ regression theorem), language that’s spoken or customs. I recall that he later in the book states that one should be careful with abolishing long-proven instituitons since the mere fact that they prevailed for such a long time is hint that they are more useful than some existing alternatives.
The former statement does not imply that it is unthinkable to abolish institutions since Hayek states that it is of most importancy that it is possible for the individual to not conform to societys rules without instituted punishment. (Of course that is not to say that one is to be allowed to murder or such …) It merely states that one should not aim to abloish an instituion for everyone. From this point of view a violent revolution that overthrows the state is a really bad idea since, undoubtedly, the state is a institution that prevailed for a very long time.
On the other hand, the possibility to cut back the state little by little, should be a more wise idea. This leaves the question whether this process is to be performed by illegal means such as trading in black markets or by political means such as voting.
I would like to hear your thoughts about Hayeks position, say if I misunderstood something. I also would like to hear how you think anarchy should be established, by revolution or evolution. If it is the former, please state how you can compromise with the position above or why you disagree.