The Financial Times has an article (sub. req.) by Amartya Sen on the legacy of F.A. Hayek on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the publication of The Road to Serfdom.

Both Sen and Hayek place great emphasis on the role of markets in promoting human freedom even though their conceptions of freedom differ. Here are a couple quotes (along with my comments) from the article. If you can get a copy, it's worth a full read.

It is the perspective of seeing markets and other institutions in terms of their role in advancing freedoms and liberties of individuals that Hayek brought into singular prominence. It may be pointed out, in contrast, that despite the title of Milton Friedman's famous book (with Rose Friedman), Free to Choose, the criteria by which Friedman tends to defend the market mechanism are not liberty and freedom, but prosperity and utility ("being free to choose" is seen as a good means - a fine instrument - rather than being valuable in itself). Even though a few other economists, James Buchanan in particular (and, to some extent, John Hicks), have presented insightful ideas on a freedom-centred line of reasoning, it is to Hayek we have to turn for the classic articulation of this way of seeing the merits of the market mechanism and what it gives to society.

I agree that placing freedom as a centerpiece goal alongside efficiency (or utility or whatever you call it) and equity is hugely important. Take note though of the cheap (and incorrect) shot at Friedman.

In The Road to Serfdom, he gave powerful reason to indicate why explicit provision has to be made by the state and the society for the deprived and the dispossessed.

This is true, but only to a point. Hayek most certainly would not agree with Sen that today's welfare state, at least not at its current size, is freedom-enhancing. Indeed, Sen's continued faith in the state is amazingly naive especially as he acknowleges the following.

A third contribution of Hayek is of particular interest to those on the left of the political spectrum. Hayek's critique of state planning is mainly based on a subtle psychological argument. He was particularly concerned with the way centralised state planning and the huge asymmetry of power that tends to accompany it may generate a psychology of indifference to individual liberty. As Hayek put it: "I have never accused the socialist parties of deliberately aiming at a totalitarian regime or even suspected that the leaders of the old socialist movements might ever show such inclination." One of Hayek's central points was that "socialism can be put into practice only by methods of which most socialists disapprove".

Anyone who's been through an Indian customs line should identify with this.