Santiago Navajas

Resumen El artículo analiza la aparente contradicción entre el rechazo de Friedrich Hayek al concepto de «justicia social» (calificado como «espejismo», «vacío» y potencialmente totalitario) y la posibilidad de una interpretación de este compatible con el liberalismo clásico. Partiendo de los orígenes católicos del término en Luigi Taparelli, quien lo concibió como virtud orientada al bien común, la dignidad humana y la subsidiaridad, el trabajo demuestra que la crítica de Hayek no se dirige al concepto originario cristiano, sino a su deformación moderna: la pretensión de aplicar criterios distributivos a los resultados impersonales del orden espontáneo del mercado y, sobre todo, a su instrumentalización coercitiva por parte de un Estado autoritario. Mediante el análisis textual de algunas obras se revela que Hayek aceptó un ingreso mínimo garantizado fuera del mercado, servicios públicos básicos, seguridad social universal mínima y medidas contra la miseria absoluta, siempre que fueran impersonales, no distorsionaran incentivos y respetaran la libertad individual. Estas posiciones resultan cercanas a la justicia social taparelliana cuando se aplican a instituciones y no a resultados particulares. Abstract: The article analyzes the apparent contradiction between Friedrich Hayek’s rejection of the concept of “social justice” (which he described as a “mirage,” “empty,” and potentially totalitarian) and the possibility of an interpretation compatible with classical liberalism. Beginning with the Catholic origins of the term in Luigi Taparelli, who conceived it as a virtue oriented toward the common good, human dignity, and subsidiarity, the paper shows that Hayek’s critique is not directed at the original Christian concept but at its modern distortion: the attempt to apply distributive criteria to the impersonal outcomes of the spontaneous market order and, above all, its coercive instrumentalization by an authoritarian state. Through textual analysis of several works, it is revealed that Hayek accepted a guaranteed minimum income outside the market, basic public services, minimal universal social security, and measures against absolute poverty, provided they were impersonal, did not distort incentives, and respected individual freedom. These positions are close to Taparelli’s notion of social justice when applied to institutions rather than to outcomes.

Hayek is one of the most celebrated liberal philosophers. He is often portrayed as a champion of free markets. In reality, Hayek is more a proponent of a type of state reformism. In his last intellectual stage, he theorized about what would be cultural evolution. This last paradigm causes a tension within his social vision since it raises the paradox that to save liberalism as a political framework would require a cultural intervention in society. We will try to resolve the paradox, first by showing the genealogy of its appearance and, finally, by proposing possible ways out of it. Resumen: Hayek es uno de los más célebres filósofos liberales. Suele ser presentado como un campeón de los mercados libres. En realidad, Hayek es más partidario de un tipo de reformismo estatal. En su última etapa intelectual teorizó sobre lo que sería la evolución cultural. Este último paradigma ocasiona una tensión dentro de su visión social, ya que suscita la paradoja de que para salvar el liberalismo como marco político sería necesario una intervención cultural en la sociedad. Trataremos de resolver la paradoja, primero mostrando la genealogía de su aparición y, finalmente, proponiendo posibles salidas a la misma. Abstract: Hayek is one of the most celebrated liberal philosophers. He is often portrayed as a champion of free markets. In reality, Hayek is more a proponent of a type of state reformism. In his last intellectual stage, he theorized about what would be cultural evolution. This last paradigm causes a tension within his social vision since it raises the paradox that to save liberalism as a political framework would require a cultural intervention in society. We will try to resolve the paradox, first by showing the genealogy of its appearance and, finally, by proposing possible ways out of it.