This file is a short public address, later printed as an essay. Hayek uses free enterprise as the entry point for a wider argument about freedom and morals. His thesis is that economic liberty is not merely an efficient arrangement for producing goods: because economic life supplies the means through which persons pursue their ends, freedom in enterprise is inseparable from personal and moral freedom.
It is only because we are free in the choice of our means that we are also free in the choice of our ends.
The essay first defines freedom in the classical liberal, legal sense. Hayek is not speaking of power to realize every desire, but of protection against discretionary command. A free order is governed by general rules equally applicable to all; administrative will is the danger because it replaces rule-bound coercion with personal subordination.
By freedom in this connection I mean, in the great Anglo-Saxon tradition, independence of the arbitrary will of another.
From that definition Hayek develops a reciprocal claim: moral values grow only where people are free, yet freedom survives only where certain moral beliefs are strong. Choice, responsibility, and the need to rank ends are the soil of moral life; compulsion can secure behavior, but not moral merit.
Obedience has moral value only where it is a matter of choice and not of coercion.
This is why Hayek rejects the paternalist claim that people must be morally fit before they receive liberty. Against tutelage by a supposedly wise ruler, he argues that unfreedom prevents the very habits it claims to prepare. A society without moral foundations may be unattractive, but it still leaves room for moral growth in a way an unfree society does not.
The address then turns to the “particular moral views” required by liberty. The first is individual responsibility. Hayek resists fashionable deterministic explanations of conduct when they are used to dissolve praise, blame, and consequences. His point is practical rather than metaphysical: free societies need the pressure of opinion and the attribution of responsibility to sustain rule-following, initiative, and foresight.
Free societies have always been societies in which the belief in individual responsibility has been strong.
The second required belief is more controversial: material rewards should correspond to the value of services rendered to others, not to society’s judgment of the whole person’s moral merit. Hayek’s defense of market reward rests on ignorance and dispersed knowledge. No authority can fully know a person’s information, risks, motives, luck, or opportunity costs, so it cannot safely distribute income according to desert without suppressing the freedom that makes discovery possible.
The simple facts are these: We want the individual to have liberty because only if he can decide what to do can he also use all his unique combination of information, skills and capacities which nobody else can fully appreciate.
This produces Hayek’s central reply to demands for distributive justice. He does not deny that income and moral worth often diverge; he insists the divergence should be acknowledged. Its importance is that it prevents material life from being governed by public approval. In a free society, unpopular beliefs, odd manners, or minority affiliations need not deprive a person of the chance to serve others through exchange.
It seems to me one of the great merits of a free society that material reward is not dependent on whether the majority of our fellows like or esteem us personally.
Hayek therefore distinguishes usefulness from honor. Free enterprise may become culturally materialistic when people mistake wealth for virtue, but collectivist politics worsens the error by making material allocation the central public concern. A pluralistic society can sustain multiple orders of esteem—religious, artistic, charitable, intellectual—precisely because income is not the official measure of moral rank.
The conclusion limits the defense of markets. Free enterprise is not a final end, and Hayek does not claim that efficiency supplies moral purpose. Rather, it is an institutional means that lets individuals cooperate for others’ wants while pursuing ends of their own. Its relevance lies in this double refusal: against market worship, it denies that wealth equals virtue; against planning, it denies that moral virtue can be safely administered.
When we defend the free enterprise system we must always remember that it deals only with means.
This work was divided into 6 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 6 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian