Hayek was very explicit in his correspondence with funders about the long time horizon over which its infl uence should be evaluated. “I . . . freely admit,” Hayek wrote, “that I neither expect immediate results nor believe that any efforts which aim at immediate results are likely to change the general trend of opinion.” Instead, he drew on his background at the London School of Economics to adopt a deliberately Fabian approach to the advancement of social change. The relationship between the society and its members would, Hayek hoped, be much like the relationship between a wellconstructed legal order and its constituents: it would merely provide a framework that enabled the individuals involved to pursue their projects aided by the greatest possible degree of mutually benefi cial interaction. “ ‘Organisation’ in the intellectual sphere must consist mainly in providing channels and facilities of communication,” he wrote, “of bringing together the people whose common outlook and interests make fruitful collaboration possible, not in ‘organising’ the work to be done which must grow freely out of the contacts and exchange of opinions.” The genius of such a structure would consist in the very limitations it set on itself. Hayek believed that the most effective way to inspire social change would be to avoid any explicit attempt to pursue it.

Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, loc. 261