Hello khalling,
I hope I am not seriously violating your conditions. This is a very interesting topic and I have learned some things of interest to me.
Of note:
We knew Rand had read Hayek, though they never met. But I was wondering if Hayek ever read any Rand. So far it does not appear that he read much of it only AS and …Fountainhead.

From the article:
“An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience. But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought (p 970).”

Could it be that Hayek could be forgiven due to an error of knowledge?

From the link provide in the article to a .pdf.

“By contrast, Roy Childs (1994, 272) tells us that “Hayek . . .244 The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol. 6, No. 2 rather admired Atlas Shrugged.” Childs “once asked him about it, and he said that he thought it was a very good, even profound, book, but apparently [he] skipped Galt’s speech. He couldn’t make heads nor tails out of it, he said, and indeed he could not understand any of her philosophical writings.” Alas, the New Individualist Review, on which Hayek served as an editorial board advisor, dismissed Rand’s book For the New Intellectual as “madness” (Goldberg 1961). Despite her harsh criticisms of the ethics and politics of particular Austrians, Rand and her early followers derived much “intellectual ammunition” from the economic insights of the Austrian school.2 Perhaps the most important contemporary theorist at the intersection of these traditions is George Reisman, who is represented in the current volume. Reisman is the author of the monumental work, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (1996), which draws from both Mises and Rand.’

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/es...

From this we could posit that Hayek did not understand and needed some instruction.
I wonder if Rand, given opportunity, could have schooled him.. what his thoughts would be.

Regards,
O.A.

I will start off by disobeying kh.
I do agree with the consternation about the negative points.
On the other recent thread referred to, dbh expressed views very strongly as is his manner. I think one or two statements are misinterpretations, if not wrong, but all were worth reading, clearly expressed, and the outcome of careful thought. Why anyone, libertarian, Austrian, classical liberal, or what, should mark down is beyond me.
I reckon, even as a Rand fellow traveler, statements such as- Hayek "an example of our most pernicious enemy" should be classified in the same way as violence in the koran, or the bible, is it an inherent absolute characteristic or is it rabble rousing or unifying the gang? Why should 'holy' books be subject to your rules, especially if it 'works'?

Thoughts
1. Hayek 'No universally valid system of ethics can ever be known to us.'
I can see some of the case against but I cannot see how a proof could be constructed especially when so many would accept Hayek's proposition.
2. Rand ' every individual must discover their own purpose through conscious thought' I do like this, only thought can identify the individual- who when what, in order to achieve maximum value for itself as a living organism thought intentions plans actions. But suppose there is an ethic of service/submission which applies to the majority? In this the individual achieves self value by advancing the group via sacrifice. How does the word 'must' apply here?

Thanks to kh for introducing me to that clubtroppo site.
Here in Australia the small number of Rand, Hayek, vonMises, Rothbard admirers are so far from the mainstream conservative collectivist environmental sustainable view that we may as well be identical.

Looking fwd to some good actual arguments as requested by kh.