STUDIES IN EMERGENT ORDER VOL 1 (2008): 92-118 “The Adam Smith Problem” Revisited: Comparing Hayek’s and Fouillée’s Answers Laurent Dobuzinskis 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to compare and contrast two approaches to spontaneous order of which F.A. Hayek and the nineteenth century French philosopher Alfred Fouillée are arguably the most exemplary practitioners. Second, and paradoxically, to draw attention to similarities that exist between these two authors and the traditions they represent, namely, classical liberalism veering toward libertarianism, on the one hand, and civic republicanism, especially in its French version. This second objective merges with the more far-reaching goal of effecting some sort of rapprochement between classical liberalism and civic republicanism via a tentative synthesis of their views on liberty and justice. (My choice of Hayek as a prototypical classical liberal think is reasonably uncontroversial, if not obvious; my choice of Fouillée as the standard bearer of civic republicanism probably demands an explanation which I provide further below.) Such a goal is unachievable here but I take the first steps towards its completion in this paper Now “liberty” and “justice” are plastic words that demand to be carefully defined. By liberty I mean an ideal affirming the sanctity of the right of all individuals to self-ownership and freedom from legal or otherwise politically imposed restraints when making decisions that do not violate the similar rights of others. This is a liberal conception of liberty in the tradition of Locke and Smith. By justice I mean not only the administration of civil and criminal law, 1 but the minimal institutional arrangements compatible with liberty which are necessary for guaranteeing that all the members of a political community treat each other fairly and receive equal protection against arbitrary (ab)uses of power at the hands of either agents of the state or of any other corporate entity or otherwise disproportionately powerful individuals. (I say “disproportionally” because evidently all citizens differ in the degree to which