As a libertarian I shall boycott Ryanair on political grounds while that state- backed parasite Michael O’Leary is in charge.
Before I explain, my apologies to Andy Duncan, for I intend to exercise the privilege of a Samizdatista and make my comment on his posting below a posting in itself. I want lots of people to read it and think as I do.
Why am I so against O’Leary? No, it is not his cheap flights (in themselves cheap flights are a good thing), nor his not paying dividends (I neither know nor care about dividends), nor his safety record (take the risk or don’t: up to you), nor his comments about wishing to be a dictator (unimportant bombast), nor the environment (a side issue: to protect it, privatise it), nor his intention to move his business elsewhere if the bureacrats mess him about (I actively like that bit).
It’s because he intends to make his airline strong by massive compulsory purchase of people’s homes, homes they love and desperately want to keep, so that airports can be expanded. Stansted Airport is the one I know about personally, but I stress that state compulsory purchase for any airport anywhere is as clear a violation of liberty as you will ever see. Like force-advocates everywhere O’Leary has a pep-talk about how it’s all necessary for the greater good, adding a positively Stakhanovite spiel about how Britain must compete with France and Germany. I stress that he doesn’t merely go along with this because he can’t imagine any other way; he is an enthusiast.
Also my neighbour saw him speak and said he was an arrogant git.
Jesus
I certainly hope Andy never praises me. Its like the ringing of the auld triangle. First IDS, then Michael O’Leary.
Eamon
Way to go, Natalie!
The only point I would not agree with you on would be extra demerits because he is an “enthusiast”. Enthusiastic or reluctant bride, if he is pursuing this programme he is not just a git but a git who is dangerous to the health and welfare of people who have property rights in his path. The next government has to take compulsory purchase off the lawbooks. That people are forced out of the homes for which they have struggled to keep up the mortgage so some slags/slagettes can get to a Greek Island and get arrested for obscene behaviour that bit quicker doesn’t register under cosmic law.
Natalie should simply purchase Ryanair. Then she would be free to pursue, or cease pursuing, whichever endeavours strike her fancy.
I come from not far from Stanstead and my mother is sort of involved in this mess.
I’ve never been happy myself with the concept of compulsory purchase. Nobody has the right to deprive you of your property, even if it is for the greater good.
Of course, that said, if anybody wants to discover my price I wouldn’t have a problem with that at all.
I assume the concept of compulsory purchase is that if I ask for eighty million pounds for my 80,000 pound house (I have no house, by the way) then I will not get what I want?
So my price will not so much be discovered as dictated?
Hi Natalie,
You’ve got me all ends up here, Natalie. His plan actually sounds like a good one, if you add a proviso, like this:
‘If we can persuade all of the local inhabitants to sell us their property, and we can agree with them a compensation schedule for the increased noise levels, then…’
But if it’s:
‘The government should compulsorily purchase the local inhabitants’ property…’
Then I must withdraw my unconditional admiration for Mr O’Leary, and seek another more worthy of affection. Which leaves us with…errr….?
Are there ANY business people, in the entire world, whom we can admire? Bill Gates has his detractors, Larry Ellison has his citizens’ database scam with the US govt, and now Michael O’Leary is trying to get John Prescott to wave his magic compulsory purchase wand.
The Heathrow jets turn just over my house, when the wind is from the east, and they’re going to double the number of these, when Terminal 5 opens. Great for IT business, I suppose, where I make my living, but am I going to get any compensation for the increased noise? No chance. It’s not in the State’s interests.
BTW, I think Eamon Brennan is great! 🙂
Rgds,
AndyD
Ten years ago, flying within Europe was horribly expensive, and largely had to be done using a small number of airlines that were granted duopolies by law, and which were either state owned, or behaved as if they were state owned and were treated by governments if they were state owned. British Airways was and is private, but was and to some extent still is able to get the British government to do its bidding – hence the lack of a new bilateral aviation treaty between the UK and the US that would be good for the British consumer, good for British airlines other than BA, good for US airlines, but bad for BA. (The situation is actually more complicated that that as there is a fair bit of bad faith on the US side as well as the UK side, but that’s the gist of it).
These days there are a number of low cost airlines, of which Ryanair and Easyjet are the two largest. These airlines have multiple European hubs, cheap fares, and are creations of a freer market than was the case with the older state owned or state created airlines. These older airlines are hurting as a consequence of this, and I think this is a very good thing. I can fly to European destinations for a third of the cost of doing so a decade ago, which is also a good thing. Ryanair is one of the airlines responsible for this, and I have admiration for them for achieving this. (My experience of flying with them is that they are okay. No frills, but they get me to my destination).
None of this is to say that compulsory purchase to expand Stansted airport is justified. (Whether it is or is not justified in order to build roads, railways, airports and whatever is something we argue about ad infinitum over at Transport Blog. The facts seem to be that it has been used for building most of Britain’s transport infrastructure. The question is whether the transport infrastructure would have been built anyway without it). If it is not justified, then Mr O’Leary should simply have his bluff called, and if he wants to expand his airline he should be forced to do it elsewhere.
None of this changes the fact that I have respect for what he has achieved. If he is an arrogant git, then this also doesn’t change that fact that I have respect for what he has achieved, although it may make me less likely to ever want to spend time in his company.
And Andy, I’m not sure that Terminal 5 will increase the number of flights into Heathrow that much. The number of flights is largely constrained by the present two runway arrangement (although this has been steadily increasing as traffic management technology improves just the same). What you will find is that the average size of the aircraft you will see will increase. These may or may not be louder than smaller aircraft. (It was once the case that smaller jets with low bypass ratio engines were usually louder than larger jets with high bypass ratio engines, although this is not so much the case these days, as the quieter high bypass ratio engines are these days used by jets of all sizes).
Did I miss something?
Surely it’s not Ryanair that’s going to expand Stanstead and make compulsory purchases of people’s houses, but BAA and the government?
Ryanair may well like the idea, and from their point of view they would have to be nuts not to, but it’s not reasonaable to harrang them for someone else’s action or possible action.
Anyway, if there really is a need for more runway capacity in the south east, then I’m afraid Stansted is the clear favourite by a mile. Consider the alternatives: Heathrow, Gatwick and this daft plan for a brand new airport on a mud flat somewhere in Kent, and it’s as clear as these things can ever get that Stansted is the least worst choice on almost any basis you care to choose.
Unless you happen to live under the flightpath, I suppose, but then someone has to.
Anyway, if there really is a need for more runway capacity in the south east, then I’m afraid Stansted is the clear favourite by a mile. Consider the alternatives: Heathrow, Gatwick and this daft plan for a brand new airport on a mud flat somewhere in Kent, and it’s as clear as these things can ever get that Stansted is the least worst choice on almost any basis you care to choose.
Unless you happen to live under the flightpath, I suppose, but then someone has to.
Somehow (and I will confess upfront to being a bit cynical here) I doubt that any of the people making the “compulsory purchase” decision will be volunteering to sacrifice their own properties for the good of queen and country, etc etc.
That’s why it’s _compulsory._
In the US Constitution we have a provision for compulsory purchace.
For things like roads and rights of way for transportation and communication infrastructure. It has been and often still is abused.
Still the public rights of way insure your freedom to travel. Other wise if some one bought up all the entrances and exits to your property you would lose your right to travel.
So like the military such takings may be a necessary evil. They should be minimised and only used for the public good not the government good.
And expanded airport represents infrastructure similar to a railroad or a canal.
One must always be on guard but to say it is wrong in all cases is in my opinion an error. No right is absolute. Unless you are a utopian or a Communist.
Libertarianism will never be mainstream until libertarians give up their dogmatic absolutism.
It is commonly accepted in the common law that some thefts may be allowed to save a life. Especially if there is restitution after the fact. No right is absolute.
You know the libertarian problem may be the inability to think of more than one thing at once. Especially if the things are contradictory.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Somebody important said that. I agree.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of petty minds. Somebody important said that. I agree.
It was Ralph Waldo Emerson, although the quote is not quite right. Also, I think a slightly longer form is better
And expanded airport represents infrastructure similar to a railroad or a canal.
Interesting. So as long as it makes some contribution to the infrastructure, compulsory purchase is A-OK?
If an expanded airport will be so beneficial, why not simply offer such preposterous prices for the properties that the owners will gleefully sell out?
Offer 10 million pounds for each house, with a proviso that all must sell or none will be bought.
Since the expanded airport will create such a deluge of additional wealth for all, this shouldn’t be a problem to fund – simply offer some shares in the expanded area and promise the investors that no returns will ever be paid on their investment.
Michael Jennings,
Thanks.
Bombadil,
What you have to understand about politics is that people want certain outcomes. It is why the Constitution starts off with “promote the general welfare” i.e. infrastructure and roads, harbor improvements, interstate highways, etc.
And the law says that people must be fairly compensated for the takings. It is this very law that in fact limits the environmental wackos. They hate paying for their mischief. It makes them unpopular. But the Supreme Court says when the loss is significant it is a taking.
Then there is the power of the purse and the power of elections. Perfect. No. Nothing done by man in the political realm can be. It is not a perfect system. But it works well enough. As long as the citizens are vigilant.
Goedel proved that utopian absolutism is impossible because there will be theorums in any system that are true but unprovable. i.e. no set of laws can cover every situation. It is why we have judges and juries.
Right or wrong decisions must be made.
Government taking of property is bad. But like an Army it may be, on occasion, necessary. The former owners should be justly compensated for their economic loss. Other than that you just have to consider that being in the path of a road is like being in the path of an army. It is one of those unfortunate facts of life. The difference is the road builders will give you at least some measure of your loss.
in the case of an airport it is decades since they were first installed. Any one with property in the neighborhood has had plenty of time to leave. Any one who bought from them was accepting the noise and the risk of eminent domain.
The squawk may just be because the people involved want the “government fairness” premium. The “old homestead” has got to be worth an extra 20 to 30% minimum. The “I’ve lived here for 50 years” may mean “for 30% more I can get some really posh diggs tens of miles from any airport”.
“No right is absolute. Unless you are a utopian or a Communist.”
Does there exist an end important enough such that condemning a newborn baby to eternal torture at the hands of sadistic paedophiles would be justified in order to achieve it? If not, then you have just accepted the existence of an absolute right. Otherwise, you have admitted that, under the right circumstances, you would willingly be a sadistic torturing paedophile. Which is it to be? 😉
“Libertarianism will never be mainstream until libertarians give up their dogmatic absolutism.”
Mainstream politics will never attain freedom until it gives up its dogmatic utilitarian relativism.
“It is commonly accepted in the common law that some thefts may be allowed to save a life.”
Is doesn’t imply ought.
“Especially if there is restitution after the fact.”
Restitution after the fact implies that a right was infringed – one cannot be legitimately punished for doing something that was not wrong.
“No right is absolute.”
Then what guides decisions of morality? You charge that absolute rights are an unrealistic utopian fallacy. Ok, so let’s start thinking pragmatically – if it is legitimate to infringe *some* rights (since none are absolute or inviolable), then who decides where to stop? If it is legitimate to steal £1 from me to save a life, then why not steal my internal organs if it would save 2 kidney transplant patients? Why not steal my freedom and make me a slave in a labour camp, if doing so would save dozens from starvation?
Of course, in your idealistic utopian naiveity, you will argue that “society” will someone limit rights infringements to “reasonable” infringements in “emergency” situations. Real world translation – you trust politicians to do the right thing. That is the same dangerous utopianism that resulted in communism killing over 150 million people in the last century.
Thus it is relativist utilitarianism that is the naive position here, for it assumes that agents of the state are perfect dispassionate judges who will always do what is best. History – reality – demonstrates that this is never the case; rather the opposite, that as soon as one right is allowed to be “legitimately” infringed by the state, then a steady and inexorable process of greater and greater infringements of ever more rights is set in progress. Society changes from one based on natural rights, to one where each social group tries their best to capture influence of the political system in order to infringe the rights of others for self-interested reasons. Read Bastiat’s “The Law” for a better exposition of this idea, or just examine the history of the USA from the war of independence to the present day.
Thus – a totally unprincipled utilitarian who believes absolute rights have no moral legitimacy whatsoever, must still accept them on pragmatic – *utilitarian* – grounds, for they are still the only way to avoid a society that is permanently on the brink of oppressing Peters in order to satisfy the desires of Pauls. Absolute rights aren’t just right, they are *useful*.
To be a utilitarian but deny libertarian absolutism is simply to confess a lack of understanding of the true nature of political power. It is to say that George Bush – given sufficient incentive – would never kill innocent people to further his own self-interest. It is to say that American citizens would never be locked up in concentration camps purely because of their ethnicity. It is to say that liberal democracies would never practise eugenics; conduct germ warfare experiments on unwitting members of their own armed forces; or aid dictators in committing genocide. Yet all these things have happened in the last 100 years, under the slogan “the ends, if important enough, justify the means”. Who is being naive now?
Ryan Air and the low costs have made it cheaper for people to take occasional trips to Europe. Unless, however, you have a really flexible timetable they are next to useless for business travellers.
Cobden Bright – you give a passionate defence of absolute property rights, to which I am entirely sympathetic. But – and I would like an answer from someone on this – what happens in the case, where, for example, someone buys a circle of land around my house and starts charging exhorbitant sums for me to enter or leave the area? Surely, without some kind of commonly-owned access-exit routes, you could have cases (admittedly extreme) where private ownership could produce such undesirable outcomes.
On a broader point, though, there is no doubt that the compulsory purchase laws have been abused both here in Britain and under the Eminent Domain laws of the US.
Richard Epstein and Walter Block are both very useful authors on this topic.
Oh and Natalie, I agree with you on this Ryanair guy. Bummer. Just when I thought we’d found an entrepreneur to admire. I’ll have to go back to admiring the only fine entrepreneur I know – my dad.
Cobden Bright writes:
Who is being naive now?
Go, Cobden, Go! 🙂
Johnathan writes:
what happens in the case, where, for example, someone buys a circle of land around my house
You might like to check out Mr Rothbard’s opinion on this. Look for the bit where it say:
You see, it’s all in the Rothbard. I even found out, from Mr Rothbard’s jottings, why Cobden Bright is called Cobden Bright! 🙂
(though I’m still struggling on how we privatize the British Army, and why the Soviet Union wasn’t a threat)
Bummer. Just when I thought we’d found an entrepreneur to admire. I’ll have to go back to admiring the only fine entrepreneur I know
Double Bummer. I now don’t know any fine entrepreneurs we can admire. Beardy Branson is too in bed with New Labour, Ellison wants the US ID card business, Hans Snook is on permanent holiday, and now O’Leary is a compulsory purchaser. Are we really down to Bill Gates? Flubber! 🙂
Andy writes:
You see, it’s all in the Rothbard.
While I thoroughly approve of your recent conversion to a hardline Rothbardian position you are making a mistake in thinking that he has the final and correct word on everything. On reading The Ethics of Liberty myself for the first time 15 years ago I too was impressed by the brilliance of Rothbard, I still think his approach is basically correct, but if you study him more deeply and critically you will discover philosophical flaws in his reasoning. Finding out how to solve these is the next step in libertarian enlightenment.
Two books which tackle Rothbard in an explicity critical way are:
Natural Law by Robert Anton Wilson and
The Myth of Natural Rights by L. A. Rollins
They are both extremely short books so don’t worry about that but you may have to find them second hand. I’m not saying that everything in these books is right but they should shake your faith in Rothbard enough to encourage you to seek answers elswhere also.
In particular Rothbard errs in his insistence on the absoluteness of property rights. Property rights are a mere consequent of a respect for human liberty.
Imagine a malevolent homeowner who plants landmines (his property) in his front garden (his property) and on the grass just above the landmines he scatters lollipops and sweets. The whole thing, he claims is ‘just a piece of avant guard installation art’. However when the children of the neighbourhood see the sweets they rush onto his lawn to take the sweets and are duly blown to shreds by the mines. The owner of the garden just looks out of his window laughing to himself that he is fortunate to live in Rothbardland where his property rights are absolute and no one can hold him accountable in law for this slaughter…..
You will have to look outside of Rothbard to find an answer to this one Andy.
While we’re talking about Ryanair, can someone explain whether it is, in fact, possible to make a long-term business out of flying people about in old 737’s for about fourpence-ha’penny, I mean really, doesn’t it cost a £sqillion a minute even to OWN a big passenger jet?
Does the Ryanair business model really work or do we just not understand it yet?
Perhaps he’s just waiting for all the others to go bust? If so, how long can he afford to wait?
The Ryanair business model is very simple, pile ’em high and sell ’em cheap. Allied to that is ruthless cost cutting.
Planes are standardised for easier maintenance and training.
Cut out middle men like travel agents
Turn arounds are cut to a minimum to achieve maximum plane usage.
Cheap secondary airports are used. Not always “out of town” as in for example Rome.
Flights to be of 1 to 1.5 hours duration max.
All optional extras such as food to be paid for in order to lower the headline price.
Michael O’Leary says he foresees the day when airports will pay him for delivering consumers to their shops, and passengers will fly for free.
More revenue will be generated shortly by providing video games and internet access on seat backs.
BTW Ryanair staff earn above the norm and the company has an excellent safety record. The model is based on South West Airlines out of Dallas.
Also the airline was founded by Tony Ryan but was foundering until O’Leary was brought in. I’d say it has as much chance of going under as Tesco has, so long as O’Leary is in charge and he doesn’t waver from the core business model.
Paul Coulam writes:
Two books which tackle Rothbard in an explicity critical way are:
Thanks for the books tips, Paul. I shall seek them out (though I hope they don’t cost $199 dollars a pop, as Rothbard’s ‘The History of Economic Thought’ does, PER VOLUME! 🙂
Imagine a malevolent homeowner who plants landmines…
My God, that’s one contorted analogy. I ‘spose we gotta face it down, though. From my (limited) interpretation of Rothbardianism though, if I were a Common Law judge, on Rothbard World, in the final Appeals court, appealed to from the court representing the children’s parents, I’d be sending that sucker down, property rights, or no property rights, on the grounds that he malevolently destroyed the property of those children’s lives, knowing that children do not have full legal awareness of things like property boundaries.
But then, as has been observed many times on Samizdata, Children are the real tough cases. Which is why the collectivists often hide behind ‘Baybees and Old Laydees’.
Cobden Bright,
I have to admit that under my system I might justify some despicable evil deed depending on the circumstances.
As to the deed you mentioned I cannot imagine the circumstances under which I might think that was the best available choice, but the universe is large and I am small.
You are a perfect example of why Libertarians can’t get elected – dogmatic utopianism.
Absolutist Libertarians are just as nuts as absolutist Communists. Too rigid for the real world. They are in fact viewed by the general population as part of the tin foil hat crowd. I think this reputation is not undeserved. Systems based on absolute rules are nice for theory. In the real world adjustments will be made.
It is better that your principles can bend in a hurricane rather than they be so rigid that they will be shattered by every breeze.
Principles should be like the flag pole and not the flag, but even the flagpole is influenced by the wind.
If principles were absolute then there would be no need for judges and juries except possibly as triers of fact. Penalties could be read off a form. We don’t do it that way because you would too often get unjust outcomes.
You have to ask youself what you want. Do you want to be a debating club or a political party capable of winning elections?
There are a lot of political parties that are really debating clubs.
Of course George Bush given sufficient incentive would kill for what he wants. He sends armies into battle and calls for live or dead captures of his (and America’s) enemies.
Any one capable of that (and I’m glad he is) is capable of murder.
Rules will not protect you (they are a good guide though) vigilance will.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
The price of liberty is NOT a good set of rules firmly adhered to.
As to the property question: in common law you have the right of access to your property even if it is enclosed. So eminent domain is not such a large deviation from common law rights as those of you defending absolutism pretend.
The right of access is part of the freedom to travel. Of course it must be balanced with property rights. Property rights may not trump freedom to travel in all cases. Thus public roads and No Trespassing signs. Try holding those two contradictory thoughts in your mind for a while. While you are at it you might think of why No Trespassing signs need to be posted. Is trespass allowed when the sign is not posted? Under what circumstances?
No right is absolute and no set of rules will keep you free. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
You are a perfect example of why Libertarians can’t get elected – dogmatic utopianism.
I’ll be honest with you. I have absolutely no desire, zero, zip, zilch, to win elections.
It is you who is utopian. You see imperfections of the human condition which exist as a matter of fact, yet you cross that wide chasm of the unideal by putting your trust in a group of individuals given a monopoly on the use of force. Yet you don’t see this ‘solution’ as worse than life’s tragic unfairness. For you it is a matter of faith. That is the true meaning of utopian.
M. Simon writes:
I have to admit that under my system I might justify some despicable evil deed depending on the circumstances.
And here’s me wrestling in a mud-swamp trying to work out how a malevolent garden-mining sweet-peddling child killer can be dealt with on Planet Rothbard, while you’re able to blithely commit despicable evil deeds with impunity, such as having my children killed, to save 100 million dollars for the US Navy.
Hmm…
What your ‘principles’ seem to boil down to, the age-old aphorism, ‘Might is Right’. Hedged in all sorts of detachable bits and pieces, tapes, and string, yes, but essentially, in the final show-down, it goes right down to that.
Or is there some principle-based Rubicon beyond which even you will not go?
I’m pleased to have started off such an erudite debate on absolute rights, Rothbard and so on, but being unsure of my own opinion I won’t participate in it now. Compulsory purchase can be opposed on grounds much closer to mainstream politics.
Jim Mangles wrote: Surely it’s not Ryanair that’s going to expand Stanstead and make compulsory purchases of people’s houses, but BAA and the government?
Big companies have enormous influence on government, and know it. Do you think this would be happening if they weren’t pushing?
…Anyway, if there really is a need for more runway capacity in the south east, then I’m afraid Stansted is the clear favourite by a mile… Stansted is the least worst choice on almost any basis you care to choose.
Unless you happen to live under the flightpath, I suppose, but then someone has to.
The assumptions I want to fight are that phrase “need for more runway capacity” and “but then someone has to.” Familiarity has blinded us the outrageousness of these ideas. There is no need. No one has to. There is only the fact that it would be more profitable for some people and more convenient for others to have new airports. Well, so what? There are many occasions when it might be profitable or convenient to put some innocent people in jail, say, which would cut crime by a deterrent effect. Most of us rightly agree that this is unacceptable – EVEN if it works.
M. Simon writes ..being in the path of a road is like being in the path of an army No it’s not. We are at peace. No lives are at stake (to answer a point about saving life he makes later.) If ever my friends’ houses lie in the path of the invading Islamo-fascist hordes then we really might have a dilemma, but all that is at stake is, as I said, convenience and profit.
Which takes me to my next point: just as societies that put innocents in jail to ensure public order have a lousy record at securing order, a society that takes people’s property to gain convenient travel and profit will not on balance be good at getting either. On the former, part of the reason the State has such a dismal record in running transport is that, having force available, it does not have to find out what really works. On the latter, it is societies that have secure property rights that get rich. The fact that compulsory purchase exists diminishes people’s incentives in all sorts of ways.
One final point, M Simon also argues:
in the case of an airport it is decades since they were first installed. Any one with property in the neighborhood has had plenty of time to leave. Any one who bought from them was accepting the noise and the risk of eminent domain. As it happens, there was a clear promise from government that there would not be further expansion at Stansted. Put not thy trust in princes! More generally, on that argument every time some little infrastructure development is proposed, residents ought to fight it like tigers because if they don’t they are ‘accepting’ that decades later they can be thrown out. Not a recipe for progress or order.
As Mr Bomadil argues, if there is a real need for an airport then it would be worth somebody’s while to spend whatever it takes to voluntarily buy off the people in the way. That’s what a need is, something you’ll do whatever it takes to get. The resort to force is confession that the need is not a need but a desire. And why should one person’s rights be trampled to satisfy lots of other people’s desires?
Jonathan,
It is not a matter of faith but a matter of observing relative results. The American system though abused from time to time works pretty well compared to all other actual systems. Our authoritarians generally have their authority limited by the people or the courts or both.
There are plenty of improvements necessary and some are on the way so I am not as discouraged or worried as you are. That may be because we have a written Constitution and can demand adhernce to it to the best of our ability and understanding.
BTW by stating that it is vigilance and not rules that give us our liberty I am quite far from utopian. I have no master plan. My plan is to adjust the various political pressures according to circumstances and abilities. In other words “what is right” and “what is possible”. The libs seem to leave out the second. Which leaves out the humans involved. Which is why libertarian ideas suitably diluted get wide spread acknowledgement and Libertarians just get laughed at. The ideas are good but absolutely applied are silly to most people.
Real people are not interested in theories they are interested in results. Which is why a howl goes up when a criminal gets off on a “technicality”. One must keep in mind that there are real people involved and they have developed ways over millenia for dealing with rights and human disputes. The English common law and the systems from which it was derrived are not to be sniffed at. They are a codification in effect of human nature in operation and the interaction of various rights.
I think the book “The Soverign Individual” was quite good about explaining why a state with a monopoly on violence might be a good thing. It lowers transaction costs and is more conducive to business than other systems. In America we have modified that a bit giving the citizens the right to be armed although they have no right to violence except in self defence. It has worked pretty well here. More and more states are expanding gun rights rather than contracting them. 9/11 put the fear of God and Osama in us. Our politicians have come along.
I still think you Brits need a written Constitution. It does create problems but it also solves a few as well. Not like that pEU job though. Something animated by the spirit of Liberty.
M. Simon,
I hear you, but, you are missing one critical point – no people have ever, and I repeat ever voted themselves liberty.
Ever.
Upon thinking about this, ask yourself who is the utopian. You really think politicians are going to make you free?
Re: the Constitution. It is a vastly overrated document mostly at odds with the Declaration of Independence. It should never have been passed. It set the stage for massive govt. Phrases like “promote the general welfare” “establish domestic tranquility” and “regulate commerce” are a tyrant’s wet dream. And although a single tyrant does not exist, many millions do. It is the tyranny of democracy. Contrary to your opinion that Constitutions keep liberty alive, they are simply pieces of paper that have no power of their own. The only thing that keeps tyrants away is a culture of liberty.
Taking part in the farce called democracy only exacerbates the problem.
You, sir, are legitimizing the very threat you seek to fight. The sooner you realize that, the sooner liberty will come.
Andy,
I’m going far beyond any principles you can possibly imagine. I am going to the ultimate principle of human interaction.
I (for the most part) trust you to do the right thing not under compulsion but because it is right. That is the only and true foundation of liberty. I think one of our founders said that if a people are not moral liberty is impossible.
At the same time I’m keeping an eye on you and there are rules. However, I have no problem bending the rules or ignoring them all together if circumstances warrant. The need to adjust legal outcomes to actual circumstances is why we have judges and juries. It is why we have humans in the loop. For criminal AND civil trials.
Petty bureaucrats are full of “the rules are the rules” mentality. Which is why business is so much more responsive than government. They have an easier time bending the rules for customer satisfaction.
“Upon thinking about this, ask yourself who is the utopian. You really think politicians are going to make you free?”
You must of missed my point about “eternal vigilance”. I don’t know why that keeps getting left out.
Jonathan,
Any kind of government you can think of or even no government at all is also a tyrants dream.
I know this is getting boring but I’m going to mention vigilance again. No government or set of rules can protect your liberty.
If your fellow citizens are not interested in protecting your liberties your own efforts will have little effect. I’m sorry to tell you this but your excercise of your individual liberty depends on that liberty being supported by the general population. Liberty may be individually exercised but it can only be effectively collectively defended.
I know that this may be hard for all of you to stomach so you can just think of me as a transitional form. You will need a LOT of transitionals to move from the present position to the desired one.
This is another often mentioned Libertarian failing. No transitional scheme. Of course transitionals are drummed out of the party for being insufficiently pure. Way cool.
I think you might find it interesting that I once thought that given the proper set of political rules all questions could be answered with certainty. I now consider that position absurd.
I have run ito fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Libertarians. I’d have to say the libertarians were at least as rigid and just as immune to argument.
Natalie Solent,
The problem the emminent domain was designed to solve was the cost of the last piece of property.
Assume you have spent 100 million for 20 miles of road and the last person to sell then asks for 50 million for the last 20 feet. Of course this cost will be passed on in some way to the road users. Either in higher fees if the road is private or higher taxes if the road is public.
Right or wrong people consider this kind of behaivior extortionate. It is not the outcome they want. To the average person outcomes are more important than strict adherence to sometimes arbitrary rules.
As I have said. The rules are quite good in theory. They will never get adopted because they leave out the behavior of real people.
As to the elements of communism in the system – they are there and have served us well. Public roads and public rights of way for infrastructure are desired by the people.
Now you know our founders were no lovers of authority yet they found that for certain goods collective action was more useful than the elimination of that possibility. Not perfect just better than the alternatives.
Well for all it’s faults the system has held up continuously longer than any other system (we might be in second place to the Brits on that one depending on your definition) so I’m not inclined to scrap it wholesale.
Besides Americans can still keep and bear arms and the laws restricting that right are being rolled back. How are you utopians doing? Better on dope worse on guns.
I hate to tell you this but to get people to move in your direction you are going to have to compromise your positions.
Let me tell you a little about emminent domain and my town. It was used once here a few years back for what was considered an unfair taking for a road. This was in the papers for a year and a half minimum with demonstrations. Then we had a market condemned in favor of a larger market – another year and a half of demonstrations. Now a days they think twice before using the power and then usually decide against it. More trouble than it is worth. The voice of the people is heard even if imperfectly.
So the peole want their roads and they want property owners treated fairly. And those desires must be balanced. By the people. Whose judgement I trust (generally).
When I disagree I have a column in a local paper. Which just ran a half page of a critique of socialism I did. I am not at all unhappy about what goes on around here. And it is getting better.
M. Simon writes:
I’m going far beyond any principles you can possibly imagine.
Well, I used to think I was arrogant, but I’ve been deluding myself. I’m a mere humble beggar in comparison. You’re obviously in a way different class, far above any of us mere plebeians.
I am going to the ultimate principle of human interaction.
Yes, but what are you basing it on? Religion? Tradition? A vague feeling from your big toe?
I (for the most part) trust you to do the right thing not under compulsion but because it is right.
How do I know what is right? Is this from my big toe again? Is it from the grounding I received at a state school, whose only effective lesson was ‘obey authority, or else’? What dreamworld do I gain this mystic knowledge from? We are not worthy, O master, please help us!
That is the only and true foundation of liberty.
What foundation? Where? That I instinctively know something is right? Are you a disciple of Kant, in that you instinctively know what is right, and without the need for anything more concrete than your feelings? Or are we ants, creatures basing everything on instinct? Or do we have to turn to you, O great all-knowing Universal guide, the only one of us capable of understanding this underlying ‘truth’? And if I diverge from your truth, do you have the right to punish me, according to your principles, which I’m incapable of understanding (or you’re incapable of explaining)?
I think one of our founders said that if a people are not moral liberty is impossible.
Well, that’s an American Founder, I presume, but remember these founders tolerated slavery. How moral is that? So please don’t use them as the font of all perfection. And who defines the morals, and how do we know they are right? The Church? Which Church? The Moslem one? Osama Bin Laden? Even he probably thinks that what he is doing, is moral. You’ve said yourself you would ignore your morals (e.g. murdering people, sorry, collaterally damaging them), if you thought the ends justified the means. That’s all Osama is doing. Following his morals, as best he can, to achieve the glorious ends of an all-Moslem world. So if he has to crack a few eggs along the way, to cook this omelette, well, it’s all in a greater cause, and God, the great custodian of all moral virtue, is willing him along.
The socialists also say it is immoral for me to own a three bushels of wheat, while my brother only owns one bushel of wheat. So they seize one of mine, and give it to him, so we both have two. They think this is perfectly moral, and I can see their argument. It is a clear ‘moral’ argument. I disagree with it, but it is clear. It is the road of these types of morals, which has led us to the world we live in, full of Big Government, or Big Religion, enforcing their own ‘morals’. (Including the American federal government, which has grown far beyond anything imagined by its founders.)
You may be happy that your government’s morals happen to coincide with your own (isn’t that a convenient coincidence, if it’s true, given that states often control education, the media, the intelligentsia in general, and have had a long cosy and happy arrangement over millennia with various religious bodies, and other non-productive intellectual organisations which they succour).
But what right does that give you to impose your morals upon anyone else? Except that you may have a bigger gun, than they do?
At the same time I’m keeping an eye on you…
Thanks, big brother.
…and there are rules.
Yes, but what are they? What are they based on? How am I to find out, except by worshipping at the church of M.Simon, and only by doing what I’m told by its priests?
However, I have no problem bending the rules or ignoring them all together if circumstances warrant.
So, we’re back to ‘Might is Right’ again. You decide everything, you decide with your morals, you decide what is in the interests of the society in which you wish to live in. You should read ‘Mein Kampf’. I believe Herr Hitler had no problem bending ‘the rules’ or ignoring them, if the circumstances warranted it. You need more lebensraum? Kill whoever’s in the way. Ignore the rule that murder is bad. Only temporarily, of course, until everyone in the world is Aryan.
The need to adjust legal outcomes to actual circumstances is why we have judges and juries. It is why we have humans in the loop.
But you’ve just said you have no problem breaking your own rules. This is known as having your cake and eating it.
For criminal AND civil trials.
Petty bureaucrats are full of “the rules are the rules” mentality. Which is why business is so much more responsive than government. They have an easier time bending the rules for customer satisfaction.
You’re back to your ‘rules’ again. What rules? Who decides them? What are they based on? So far as I can make it out, through your ‘principles above my conception’, the state decides the rules, the state judges upon the rules, and the state decides upon them in the manner which best suits the state’s interest.
M. Simon, what on Earth are you doing contributing to a libertarian website for? As far as I can make out, from your numerous opaque pieces on this thread, you ultimately believe that ‘Society’ should decide the good conduct and morals of all the individuals under its control, in Society’s interest. Or did I miss something? (I already know I’m not very bright)
If this is true, there can be only one inevitable conclusion. You … are … a … statist.
There. Doesn’t that feel better? You’re also far too clever for us mere feeble libertarians. You should be spending your energies on getting elected to some position of authority instead. You appear to have all of the qualifications.
M. Simon,
If your fellow citizens are not interested in protecting your liberties your own efforts will have little effect. I’m sorry to tell you this but your excercise of your individual liberty depends on that liberty being supported by the general population. Liberty may be individually exercised but it can only be effectively collectively defended.
I never claimed otherwise. In fact, my statement “The only thing that keeps tyrants away is a culture of liberty,” agrees with the above paragraph. However, for you, a collective defense of liberty involves democracy. For me, a collective defense of liberty involves culture and civil society.
Democracy, rightly so, was made obselete 2000 years ago, yet the schools teach that it is some kind of Enlightened form of social interaction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Democracy is simply mob rule.
The Founders tried to solve this problem with republicanism, but it has degenerated into a democracy. Anyone watching California state politics can see that.
It is your means that I disagree with. Elections aren’t going to bring liberty. They will instead bring people like Clinton, Bush, Gray Davis, and Chuck Schumer.
No transitional scheme. Of course transitionals are drummed out of the party for being insufficiently pure. Way cool.
Again, you fail to see things from the ethical meta-context of libertarianism. I am not part of any political party. There is no ‘drumming’ out, at least on my behalf.
I think you might find it interesting that I once thought that given the proper set of political rules all questions could be answered with certainty. I now consider that position absurd.
You’re right, that is absurd.
I have run ito fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Libertarians. I’d have to say the libertarians were at least as rigid and just as immune to argument.
And I have run into fundamentalist practicalitarians who were so rigid they could not conceive of human interaction based on ethics, but only politics. They were also immune to argument.
It’s a good thing that the Founders threw practicalitarianism out the window.
“Well, I used to think I was arrogant, but I’ve been deluding myself. I’m a mere humble beggar in comparison. You’re obviously in a way different class, far above any of us mere plebeians.”
Well actually I’m not near so arrogant as those gentlemen from 1776 from whom I take my cue. I would count myself among their supporters though.
Liberty does not depend on a set of rules. It depends on eternal vigilance of the people. If the people are not interested in liberty it will be hard to secure your own.
============================
If the US of A founders had really thrown practicalism out the window they would not have supported things like emminent domain. What they did to modify their practicalism was to say that government has to pay for the privledge. And that the citizen has recourse through the courts and the ballot.
The biggest brake in practicalism in the US of A is the idea that government takings require renumeration. As we have seen in so many cases in America. Stealing forrests is easy. Paying for the privledge is hard.
A balancing of interests.
=================================
Will some one of our fair cousins across the pond please explain to me how you can have liberty without the support of the people? Compare dope and guns. USA vs the Brits.
Let me go back to the beginning. As far as the great mass of people are concerned principles are only good as long as they give good results. This is a fact of life. Howl all you want. It will not change the facts. Any practical politics must :
a. be rule based for certainty
b. allow for exceptions where hard cases would make bad law.
Now you need b. because no rule can cover all situations.
It seems that most here are arguing for a. without allowing for the obvious necessisity for b. By saying that b. is not necessary you are saying that your set of rules can encompass all situations. Goedel says you can’t. Last I heard it shattered Russels life work. It appears to be continuously shattering the utopian libertarians.
Now an argument on the best set of rules allowing for deficiencies is reasonable. To say you have the perfect set of rules that will cover all cases is errant nonsense. What do you do when rules conflict? Who decides? On what basis?
Because of possible conflicts in rules, no system of rules can keep you free. Eternal vigilance is required.
The reason we have judges, juries, and elections is to handle the b. question.
Me too!
See:
http:dont-fly-ryanair.efekt.katowice.pl