本文嘗試從四個方面出發論證哈耶克為什么不是一個保守主義者。首先介紹1950年代發生在自由意志主義與傳統的保守主義之間的三次重要辯論,從思想史的角度厘清哈耶克寫作的時代背景與動機;然后通過引入亨廷頓關于保守主義的三種定義(貴族式的、自主式的和情境式的)辨析哈耶克與保守主義的關系。本文認為,當哈耶克批評保守主義的神秘主義、反智主義、等級制以及推崇權威與特權的傾向時,他反對的是"貴族式"定義的保守主義,當哈耶克批評保守主義因為缺乏"政治原則"所以會被社會主義拖著走的時候,他反對的是"情境式"定義的保守主義。雖然哈耶克與"自主式"定義的保守主義——這也是保守主義最富哲學意蘊的部分——具有相當的重合度,但這依然不足以支持他成為一個保守主義者。

This paper argues why Hayek is not a conservative from four aspects. It starts by laying out three important debates between libertarianism and traditional conservatism in the 1950 s and by clarifying the intellectual background and motivation of Hayek’s writing "Why I Am Not a Conservative. "It then introduces three types of conservatism—aristocratic,autonomous,and situational—put forward by Samuel Huntington.The paper argues that Hayek rejects the aristocratic definition of conservatism when he criticizes its traditionalistic,anti-intellectual,and often mystical propensities,and that Hayek also rejects situational conservatism,criticizing it as being closer to socialism than true liberalism due to its lack of political principles. Although there are many overlapping ideas between Hayek’s thought and the autonomous definition of conservatism,they are inadequate for labeling Hayek as a conservative.