114 The Nature of Political Theorya catallactic order (which for Hayek corresponds to a free liberal society), is a spontan-
eous order, which arises from the diverse activities of individuals. Justice is concerned
with facilitating the maximum freedom of individuals to pursue their own personal
interests or goods. Justice, in this context, is concerned with maintaining proced-
ural rules to provide the conditions for individual freedom. It is not concerned with
fair outcomes. Consequently, there is a direct antagonism with distributive justice.
Injustice is concerned, conversely, with intentional acts of restraint, interference, or
coercion. The outcomes of a market order are neither just nor unjust, since they are
not the result of intentional actions. As Hayek notes,
It has of course to be admitted that the manner in which the benefits and burdens are appor-
tioned by the market mechanism would in many instances have to be regarded as very unjust
ifit were the result of a deliberate allocation to particular people. But this is not the case.
Those shares are the outcome of a process the effect of which on particular people was
neither intended nor foreseen...To demand justice from such a process is clearly absurd,
and to single out some people in such a society as entitled to a particular share evidently
unjust. (Hayek 1976: vol 2, 65)
The Hayekian scheme implies beliefs about the importance of individualism, the
liberty and rights of individuals, the significance of the free market economy, and a
more limited conception of the constitutional state.
The principles that generally govern the frameworks of distributive justice are
morally arbitrary to Hayek and reflect largely the personal interests and goals of the
individuals who frame them. Even if such deep principles could be found, they could
not be put into practice in a society ‘whose productivity rests on individuals being
free to use their knowledge and abilities for their own purposes’ (Hayek 1978: 140).
Distribution implies a plan and planners who will attempt to impose their principles
coercively upon others. Such processes inevitably create injustices by their very arbit-
rariness, which is incompatible with a plural society. This was the major theme of
Hayek’sThe Road to Serfdom(1944). Distributive justice thus tends to move societies,
under the mirage of social justice, toward totalitarianism. Conversely, a genuinely
just society should allow individuals maximum freedom to pursue their own interests
without interference. If individuals were to receive benefits or burdens on the basis
of needs or merits then this would also undermine the efficiency of the market order.
Hayek does though acknowledge some role for the state to alleviate extreme hard-
ship. Apart from the manner in which justice is generated, proceduralists, such as
Hayek, repudiate all forms of contractual theory—although the outcome and sub-
sequent account of the proceduralist view is markedly similar to the ‘justice by mutual
advantage’ argument.
In Nozick, justice is concerned with a historical entitlement theory, which embod-
ies principles that govern legitimate acquisition and transfer of goods. His theory is
essentially showing that anarchistic principles are compatible with a minimal state.
InAnarchy State and Utopia(1974) individuals are envisaged (without any philo-
sophical argument) as possessing certain basic rights to life, liberty, and property.
He takes it wholly for granted that such atomized individuals exist. Thus, the whole