A quest for social justice: A critique of Hayek's social philosophy

For Hayek, the rule of law and principles of social justice strictly exclude each other. According to laissez-faire philosophers the concept of the rule of law excludes all substantive equality, positive liberty, affirmative action, sanctions for discrimination; namely all the aims of social justice are excluded from the concept of 'justice'. Irreconcilability of the rule of law and social justice is one of the main arguments of Hayek's thought. Formal justice is the only kind of justice and equality before the law is the only kind of equality. The concept of the rule of law is radicalized by laissez-faire philosophers in the twentieth century. This extreme attitude is based on an assumption: formal justice and capitalism are strictly related to each other. Thus, this attitude is in contrast with social justice. According to libertarians, any positive sanction towards substantive justice (for particular people and classes) will destroy the rule of law, namely the law of liberty. However, in this thesis, I will try to undermine Hayek's irreconcilability thesis and offer an idea which makes the rule of law compatible with social justice. I will use the capability approach to reconcile these two concepts. My theory of social justice makes this reconciliation necessary. It refutes the Hayekian premises.