Neoliberalism centered on a strong state, not the classical night-watchman state

Evidence

Since the epistemic innovations covered in our first section informed the MPS thought collective that the masses will never understand the true architecture of social order, and intellectuals will continue to tempt them to intervene and otherwise muck up the market, they felt impelled to propound the central tenet of neoliberalism—that is, that a strong state was necessary to neutralize what he considered to be the pathologies of democracy. The notion of freedom as exercise of personal participation in political decisions was roundly denounced (Hayek 1960, 13): you cannot activate your species being by participation in the polis. Hayek insisted that his central epistemic doctrines about knowledge dictated that freedom must feel elusive for the common man: “Man in a complex society can have no choice but between adjusting himself to what to him must seem the blind forces of the social process and obeying the orders of a superior” (1972, 24). Paraphrasing Walter Benjamin, citizens must learn to forget about their “rights” and instead be given the opportunity to express themselves through the greatest information conveyance device known to humankind, the market. This was not the night watchman state of the classical liberals; this was light-years from John Stuart Mill. The neoliberal thought collective, through the instrumentality of the strong state, sought to define and institute the types of markets that they (and not the citizenry) were convinced were the most advanced. In this contention, they were merely echoing Schmitt’s position that “only a strong state can preserve and enhance a free-market economy” and “only a strong state can generate genuine decentralization, [and] bring about free and autonomous domains” (quoted in Cristi 1998, 31, 34n7). This notion was echoed (without attribution) by Hayek: “If we proceeded on the assumption that only the exercises of freedom that the majority will practice are important, we would be certain to create a stagnant society with all the characteristics of unfreedom” (Hayek 1960, 32). — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 2145

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes the neoliberal strong state from the classical liberal night-watchman state — a core definitional point for any historiography of the MPS.
• XREF: Connects to later policy work on the ‘strong state’ rhetoric of Pinochet’s Chile and Thatcher-era centralization — the same tension between market rhetoric and state power. — connects to: Neoliberalism seeks to transform and take over the state, not shrink it — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 117; Neoliberalism seeks a strong state that thwarts democracy, not a weak one — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 155; Neoliberalism expands state penal power while professing to shrink government — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 179 (+25 more)
• QUESTION: The Hayek-Schmitt convergence on the strong state, with Hayek echoing Schmitt without attribution — worth chasing whether this proximity has been more systematically examined.

Broader Connections

• Neoliberalism strengthens repressive state apparatuses rather than shrinking government #corroborates (0.95) — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 1748