> So, the implicit assumption of markets as the 'natural state' of human organization has not real basis.
I would agree. I don't think such a general statement is valid.
> Even money is an invention of the state.
This I highly disagree with. I think the evidence is quite clear that money was independently arrived at both by state and by trade. It depends a bit on how you define it, but I think no other conclusion is possible.
> It's the idea that markets know what is better for us what many reject.
I don't understand who is making that argument.The hole point of Hayek is that you can follow your own goals and as long as you are in a market structure you will be helped in doing so.
If with 'us' you mean a state by democratic rule then the matter gets more complicated because its not at all clear that the outcome of the democratic process is a better 'aggregation of wills' then a market process.
I would agree. I don't think such a general statement is valid.
> Even money is an invention of the state.
This I highly disagree with. I think the evidence is quite clear that money was independently arrived at both by state and by trade. It depends a bit on how you define it, but I think no other conclusion is possible.
> It's the idea that markets know what is better for us what many reject.
I don't understand who is making that argument.The hole point of Hayek is that you can follow your own goals and as long as you are in a market structure you will be helped in doing so.
If with 'us' you mean a state by democratic rule then the matter gets more complicated because its not at all clear that the outcome of the democratic process is a better 'aggregation of wills' then a market process.