There is so much “shyte” written about Hayek that it’s impossible to defend him against the cabbages of sophism. Look, Hayek in the sensory order, in the Knowledge Problem, in the Pricing System’s solution to the Knowledge Problem, can only be understood as he finally understood it, as a question of the Law, and the LAW as the institutional means of preserving the exceptionalism of western civilization.
We do not submit to the market, we submit to the law, and we do so because it is, as in all cases, the means by which we provide no incentive to others to fail to submit to the law. The fact that we finally had power of the purse sufficient to interfere in the economy merely required hayek to expand it.
Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for hayek, I was born after Turing (and chomsky) and Hayek before. So Hayek’s work can be completed in a method he could sense in the Sensory Order but not develop into the Science of Law he finally understood was the NEGATIVE means by which we produce positive ends. Popper got partway there. Hayek got partway there. Turing got partway there. Chomsky took turing and added a little bit more. But it was too late to prevent the 20th century’s consumption of the accumulated capital of western civilization.