tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post7628442810495516707..comments2023-10-19T01:44:50.017+01:00Comments on Liberal Polemic: Taking Liberties since 1797Liberal Polemichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-2768517489262428062007-07-06T11:19:00.000+01:002007-07-06T11:19:00.000+01:00Joe,I have a tendency to use "Socialsim" as a shor...Joe,<BR/><BR/>I have a tendency to use "Socialsim" as a shorthand for the combination of statism, collectivism and egalitarianism under which we laboured (should that have a capital "L"?) during the C20th. I accept this may not be a purist definition, but I need <I>something</I> to call it!<BR/><BR/>(I can't help noticing that there are a few too many 'isms in that paragraph. I'm sure it's a sign of sloppy writing.)<BR/><BR/>I think you have got to the nub of the matter, which is the degree to which a limiting constitution is a statement of the fundamental principles underlying a society, as opposed to being simply the older generation bequeathing its prejudices to the next.<BR/><BR/>I believe that there is a fundamental difference between these underlying principles of society (which must exist before any society can be said to exist, even if they have not yet been codified) and the policy of the moment. <BR/><BR/>I entirely agree that we should not simply enshrine policy in a constitution so that future generations are bound by our whims. That is why the <A HREF="http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am18.html" REL="nofollow"> 18th Amendment</A> was such a disgrace, and why I fear that a British constitution would make (say) tax-funded, state-managed, near-monopoly provision of health care “Free at the point of delivery” a right enshrined in the constitution, where as it should be a matter for simple statute. <BR/><BR/>But the fundamental freedoms of individuals, that exist prior to the forming of communities – let alone governments – should not be so easily dispensed with. The <I>purpose</I> of a constitution is to limit government, after all – it should do more than just lay out structures and procedures.<BR/><BR/>There is also a practical issue here. There really is no point in having a limiting constitution if it can be amended (as at present) by a simple majority without having to seek so much as a counter-signature (Her Majesty aside, and she’s not refused for three centuries!). If you “hope we do get the kind of limiting constitution that you are talking about”, but you do not agree with my logic, what is your justification for limiting the majority?<BR/><BR/>BTW: I hope when you and I debate I don’t come across as quite as condescending as <A HREF="http://wintershaven.net/2007/07/03/socialism-in-the-zeitgeist/" REL="nofollow"> they guy you highlighted</A>!<BR/><BR/>Right. The last word is yours, as I’m off to Crete! (How is Sheffield, btw ;o)Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-83911557464124349992007-07-05T18:15:00.000+01:002007-07-05T18:15:00.000+01:00Tom,You seem to be using the word 'socialism' in m...Tom,<BR/><BR/>You seem to be using the word 'socialism' in much the same way as this guy:<BR/><BR/>http://wintershaven.net/2007/07/03/socialism-in-the-zeitgeist/<BR/><BR/>But it is quite wrong - socialism does not mean 'whatever the state does'.<BR/><BR/>I hope we do get the kind of limiting constitution that you are talking about, but I am not at all clear that your thinking is correct.<BR/><BR/>The majority of the day will often want to pursue the wrong policy. Right. Therefore we need an entrenched constitution which rules out certain kinds of wrong policy? Sorry, no I don't follow the logic. All that will do is systematically impose the will of the majority of one day on the will of the majority of another day. It is saying that the present is wiser than the future.<BR/><BR/>Yes, such a constitutions would be good, but not by virtue of being a means to oppose majority opinion. Minorities get it wrong too, and many who complain of a tyranny of the majority may be seeking a tyranny of the minority.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-66876422276663962972007-07-05T17:54:00.000+01:002007-07-05T17:54:00.000+01:00Joe,You still appear to be labouring under the del...Joe,<BR/><BR/>You still appear to be labouring under the delusion that this article is condemning democracy, as opposed to criticising it.<BR/><BR/>Of course we have a greater chance of liberty under democracy, but we still see our liberty impinged upon every day by governments claiming to have "democratic mandates". <BR/><BR/>I agree with Popper: democracy is the power to sack one's leaders, <I>not</I> the transfer of sovereignty to them.<BR/><BR/>We will of course have to struggle to win support for liberalism in a society that has been conditioned to socialism (I lament this point at the end of my follow-on post: http://liberalpolemic.blogspot.com/2007/07/restoring-liberties-in-2007.html). Hopefully we can get people to agree to limit the power of the government to do whatever today's majority wants. <BR/><BR/>If that is not our aim, but instead we are simply trying to get our policies enacted by whatever majority we can muster against the will of a minority, then our "liberal democracy" is no better than "social democracy" or "compassionate conservatism"; just a bunch of do-gooders trying to coerce the unwilling to do what we think is right.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-37561317134453722292007-07-05T16:53:00.000+01:002007-07-05T16:53:00.000+01:00The New Yorker of 5 July discusses Bryan Caplan’s ...The New Yorker of 5 July discusses Bryan Caplan’s book “The Myth of the Rational Voter” which I am still trying to come to grips with.<BR/><BR/>http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/07/09/070709crbo_books_menand?currentPage=allEdishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10852931736127760026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-38203606857954467982007-07-05T16:48:00.000+01:002007-07-05T16:48:00.000+01:00...like a cancer :oD...like a cancer :oDLiberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-2724984586054624192007-07-05T16:29:00.000+01:002007-07-05T16:29:00.000+01:00Excellent post. It articulates some things I've be...Excellent post. It articulates some things I've been thinking about recently.<BR/><BR/>The Bishop's talk about saying what governments can do is interesting. To an extent that's what the US Bill of Rights and constitution attempted with Amendment 10:<BR/><I> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course this has been ignored and the meaning of the constitution twisted so as to make it irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>Government will always grow it seems...Tristanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15395992764678278326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-65523633466408903012007-07-05T16:13:00.000+01:002007-07-05T16:13:00.000+01:00ISTM = It seems to meAnyway, yawn, Hitler was not ...ISTM = It seems to me<BR/><BR/>Anyway, yawn, Hitler was not elected, he only ever got 15% of the vote. He was installed by the mainstream right-wing party which was elected. (I would guess many UK conservatives wanted to do something similar with Moseley.)<BR/><BR/>But getting back to the point, if people elect a tyranny, then democracy is over. Democracy is the ability to remove leaders (Popper), and this ability can hardly diminish liberty.<BR/><BR/>Yes, in theory, a democracy could behave tyrannically, and still be re-elected. In theory there could be a libertarian dictator. Show me a good example of either. There are good reasons why in practice it happens the other way round.<BR/><BR/>If all you are saying is that some democracies are freer than others - that liberal democracies are better than social democracies, fine. Of course that's true.<BR/><BR/>But frequently this debate, particularly in the US, seems to include an imaginary third option - a government constitutionally limited, so that whether it is democratic or not it cannot be tyrannical. <BR/><BR/>The US is of course anomalous in having had a very good constitution a long time ago, and can be excused for imagining that this sort of manna from the heavens is natural.<BR/><BR/>The rest of us have to worry about where such a constitution might come from, and what would give it legitimacy. Of course only a democratic process would give it legitimacy. Guys, we are back to the need to win the political arguments for the kind of government we want. And we are a million times more likely to get it thanks to democracy.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-61942340231014498952007-07-05T15:55:00.000+01:002007-07-05T15:55:00.000+01:00I think we probably guess that, Jock :o)My guess t...I think we probably guess that, Jock :o)<BR/><BR/>My guess to the <A HREF="http://www.seangabb.co.uk/" REL="nofollow"> Sean Gabb </A> question is "no". He'd see the office-seeker as a sell-out.<BR/><BR/>What does "ISTM" stand for?Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-26187332389276079722007-07-05T15:15:00.000+01:002007-07-05T15:15:00.000+01:00Sorry - that was "no" to Joe, not Tom!Sorry - that was "no" to Joe, not Tom!Jock Coatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15550558005508328017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-49098140347941547212007-07-05T15:13:00.000+01:002007-07-05T15:13:00.000+01:00No, democracy becomes its own form of tyranny. An...No, democracy becomes its own form of tyranny. And those who elevate democracy to an end rather than a means are complicit.<BR/><BR/>It's not about democracy being the opposite of tyranny. It's as that Churchill quote in the article says that democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others. I would venture that all forms of "government" lead to tyranny of some kind, because "government" is the opposite of freedom. Less government is less opposed to freedom and more government is more opposed to freedom.<BR/><BR/>ISTM that government is always someone thinking that they know better than everryone else and wanting to impose that on everyone else.<BR/><BR/>But I was wondering - can a libertarian stand for political office without upsetting Sean Gabb?Jock Coatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15550558005508328017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-89920949400493406932007-07-05T15:05:00.000+01:002007-07-05T15:05:00.000+01:00Er… Yes, you are.Tyranny is the opposite of libert...Er… Yes, you are.<BR/><BR/>Tyranny is the opposite of liberty. It is not the opposite of democracy. It is quite possible to have a democratic tyranny (Hitler was elected, and the Algerians voted for in 1991 for a party that was likely to abolish democracy)<BR/><BR/>The point of this article is that even when democracy functions perfectly, it naturally leads to legislative proliferation, a “ban culture”, rising taxation and more regulation. This is not liberal; it is the tyranny of the majority.<BR/><BR/>Not of a particular majority, mind, but a series of temporary majorities that coalesce around support for one oppressive measure or another (e.g. prohibition), force their will on the minority, and then dissipate, to be replaced by a new and differently constituted majority that demands a different coercive measure (e.g. compulsory cycle helmets).<BR/><BR/>The point is not (as I’m sure I explained) that we should abandon democracy. The point is that we must make sure that it cannot be used as a tool for tyranny. Therefore it must be a <I>liberal</I> democracy, with a limited State, guaranteed freedoms and so forth.<BR/><BR/>I will post some suggestions for that can be affected this evening.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-62825576193844912332007-07-05T14:41:00.000+01:002007-07-05T14:41:00.000+01:00Er, am I missing something here?1. "Democracy bad ...Er, am I missing something here?<BR/><BR/>1. "Democracy bad for liberty" => "tyranny good for liberty".<BR/><BR/>2. "tyranny good for liberty" is false.<BR/><BR/>Therefore<BR/><BR/>3. "Democracy bad for liberty" is false.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Well?Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-14121626412263402102007-07-05T11:07:00.000+01:002007-07-05T11:07:00.000+01:00It’s a huge problem. I have begun to realise that ...It’s a huge problem. I have begun to realise that a lot of people really don’t want freedom. <BR/><BR/>In a reverse of the liberal maxim that everybody should have the maximum freedom possible without infringing the freedoms of others, I find that most people want to the maximum latitude to impose their beliefs on others that is possible without the consequent burden of others’ impositions becoming unbearable.<BR/><BR/>Thus people would rather ban smoking than avoid smoky pubs, even though it violates the freedom of individuals to smoke and the freedom on private landlords to decide who may do what in their private establishments. They care more about foxes than people so they will jail those who hurt foxes. Go for <A HREF="http://www.travelbite.co.uk/News/uk/england/lands-end-john-ogroats-naked-$12774.htm" REL="nofollow"> a walk in the clothes God gave you</A> and they’ll call you a pervert, set the police upon you and even beat you up.<BR/><BR/>And when some petty regulation disrupts their life they rail against politicians and “the system”, without realising that this is the very system that they are so thrilled to use against those with whose lifestyles they disapprove, and to which they have give both tacit and explicit assent.<BR/><BR/>I can see no way out of the ties with which we have bound ourselves. Democracy is now considered to be an end in itself, and freedom only expressible through a ballot box. As long as people think that freedom lies in collective action and majoritarianism, we are doomed to a tyranny that few of us can even see.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-80635662759080710822007-07-05T07:43:00.000+01:002007-07-05T07:43:00.000+01:00One thing we cannot seem to escape though is what ...One thing we cannot seem to escape though is what David Hume described as the "recommendation of antiquity". We are <A HREF="http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/tearing_unwritten" REL="nofollow">far too timid</A> when it comes to proposing constitutional reform, and it comes down to "wonks" like Smith and dare I say it some of the sort who read your blog to make proposals that we know have little chance of success as Smith says of his.<BR/><BR/>How do we convince a critical mass of people that the current system is broken if men are "governed by authority not reason"?Jock Coatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15550558005508328017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-55430556487365301982007-07-05T02:48:00.000+01:002007-07-05T02:48:00.000+01:00Kit,Not at all. A "Liberal Democrat" is one who re...Kit,<BR/><BR/>Not at all. A "Liberal Democrat" is one who recognises the need to limit democracy to prevent it from infringing on the freedom of individuals.<BR/><BR/>Bishop,<BR/><BR/>I think you have a good point. I have half written my summary of the companion paper, in which I reiterate the point that everything is allowed unless it is specifically forbidden. <BR/><BR/>The reverse is true for government: everything should be forbidden unless specifically permitted.Liberal Polemichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002372579024659424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-14672993546099547192007-07-04T21:34:00.000+01:002007-07-04T21:34:00.000+01:00Definitely post of the day for me. I was intereste...Definitely post of the day for me. I was interested to see another classical liberal connection to St Andrews too.<BR/><BR/>I will have to read Craig Smith's papers in more detail, but having glanced through his recommendations for constitutional principles, I think he misses a trick. Defining what government can't do (via a Bill of Rights) is actually a weak and potentially even a dangerous step. Many would say it would be much better to define what it <B>can</B> do and leave it at that. Then your right to (say) free speech is protected because it doesn't appear as an area the government is entitled to legislate in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1859345528889981553.post-1875894729507793262007-07-04T20:12:00.000+01:002007-07-04T20:12:00.000+01:00Excellent post but I can't resist asking are you s...Excellent post but I can't resist asking are you saying "Liberal Democrat" is an oxymoron?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com