In a searing 1966 critique, Friedrich Hayek described the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an incoherent attempt 'to fuse the rights of the Western liberal tradition with an altogether different conception derived from the Marxist Russian Revolution'. Hayek praised the document's first twenty-one articles for following the eighteenth century precedent and enshrining the 'classical civil rights'. But he heavily criticised the remaining articles, which laid out a long list of social and economic rights, including rights to social security, work, rest and leisure, food, clothing, housing, medical care, social security and education, and to form and join trade unions. Hayek believed such guarantees fundamentally misunderstood the nature of rights. Not only were they too vague for a court to enforce, he argued; they were ultimately meaningless, as no declaration of rights could actually guarantee anyone a certain standard of material welfare. In scathing terms, he wrote that the 'conception of a "universal right" which assures to the peasant, to the Eskimo, and presumably to the Abominable Snowman, "periodic holidays with pay" shows the absurdity of the whole thing'.

Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, loc. 145