Hayek rejects sovereignty as a false theological concept

Evidence

Sovereignty, by nature unlimited, is flatly incompatible with limited government and “the dethronement of politics,” both of which are necessary for a flourishing economic and moral order. Moreover, the very notion of sovereignty rests on a “false constructivist interpretation of the formation of human institutions which attempts to trace them all to an original designer or some other deliberate act of will.” Thus, Hayek concurs with Schmitt that sovereignty is a secularized theological concept, but, unlike Schmitt, regards sovereignty as false and dangerous because it is theological. For Hayek, political institutions do not emerge from acts of will, but from “the existence among the people of certain opinions of what is right and wrong.” — Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism, 113

Categorization

• XREF: Hayek’s sovereignty critique inverts Hobbes’s creation-from-above and connects to Schmitt’s secularized theology; resonates with the Frankfurt discussion of neo-Thomist natural law debates. — connects to: Hayek rejected social and economic rights as incoherent and unenforceable — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 145; Sovereignty theory was retained as ideology to mask disciplinary power — Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, 545

Broader Connections

• Sovereignty theory was retained as ideology to mask disciplinary power #complicates (0.73) — Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, 545
• Hayek rejected social and economic rights as incoherent and unenforceable #expands (0.72) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 145