There has not been much discussion in the blog world that I have seen of late about the British government’s apparent fierce determination to make us sign up to the proposed EU Constitution. While we ponder the difficulties of trying to establish some form of piece and liberty in Iraq, we ought to think a bit more about the threat to our liberties nearer to home.
Unlike some EU sceptics and foreign policy isolationists, I don’t elevate national sovereignty into some kind of religion. The only sovereignty I recognise is that over my own person. I take the practical view that if we are to try to reverse the trend towards ever bigger government, it will be even harder to achieve such a task at pan-European level than at the national one. In the UK we do – in a rough fashion – have a shared political tradition, a common language, and a broadly similar culture. While multi-lingual political unions are conceivable, they are not, as far as I can see, easily sustainable without a lot of positive factors such as shared cultural and economic interests, and so forth.
The fine print of the EU constitution is not the sort of thing to get voters charged up. But I have a sickly feeling in my stomach that unless the process is stopped very soon, we will wake up to find that the juggernaut of the State is even more resistant to control than ever before. Time is running short.
The only sovereignty I recognise is that over my own person.
Thanks Jonathan. This sort of verifies part of my comment in the subsequent post (“Friends are where you find them”) to the effect that liberterians have — as a general rule — little or no attachment to collective political aspirations or concerns.
George… well… yeah, guilty as charged. I have attachment to some social concerns which have political manifestations, such as killing members of Al Qaeda for example, but yes, I have no attachment to almost all collective political aspirations or the democratic political processes which underlie them, which for the most part,no different to getting your views heard at a meeting of mafia capos.
… which for the most part,no different to getting your views heard at a meeting of mafia capos.
Yes, Perry, and that’s what I find so troubling: the apparent libertarian premise that politicians are scoundrels who are guilty until proven innocent (though that’s most unlikely) and — more troubling still — that political institutions are presumptively suspect.
This sort of political cynicism (unless I’m quite in error) is more reflective of the Middle East than of Western liberal democracy.
While mulling over the thoughts of the insightful Perry de Havilland, I happen to be reading Ferguson’s Empire. This quote (p.248) is from old Joe Chamberlain, 1902:
The British Empire … is based upon a community of sacrifice. Whenever that is lost sight of, then, indeed, I think we may expect to sink into oblivion like the empires of the past, which … after having exhibited to the world evidences of their power and strength, died away regretted by none, and leaving behind them a record of selfishness only. (Emphasis added)
Food for thought (it seems to me) here at Samizdata.
George: as the political process is inherently corrupting, yes, politicians are indeed corrupted scoundrels who are guilty until proven innocent (which is indeed most unlikely).
As I regard 90% of the functions of modern democratic nation-states as illegitimate (thus regard modern nation-states as not all that different from mafia protection rackets which take money for ‘services’ you don’t actually want), how could I possibly think otherwise?
Politicians are people who use the collective means of coercion to direct societies in ways they would not otherwise go, and they fund what they do with force backed tax collection, so only politicians who genuinely want to reduce the scope and depth of what states do have any chance whatsoever of not being scoundrels.
Well then, Perry, we agree. That is to say, we seem to agree on what the late Russell Kirk might have called “The Libertarian Mind.”
You cannot impose moral altruistic (self sacrificing) behaviour on someone via a political system, because then it is not moral behaviour at all, just behaviour that is the result of coercion. Thus talk of sacrifice is, to put it bluntly, just an apologia for the violence of collective political interaction over the individual consent of social interaction.
If I act for the benefit of another because I wish to do so, that can be moral… however to impose actions and costs on me that benefit another without my consent neither makes me moral nor does it make the people forcing me to act thusly moral.
The British Empire was never a ‘moral’ institution… no political order ever is and certainly not any Empire… and if the actions of enough people acting in their own self-interest (‘selfishly’) caused that Empire to end, then right there you have a pretty damn good defence of one of the many wonderful virtues of ‘selfishness’.
You cannot impose moral altruistic (self sacrificing) behaviour on someone via a political system…
I agree. Such altruism must have roots in love of country (or race or tribe), selfless regard for one’s fellow man, or (dare I suggest it?) obedience to one’s God. It is precisely such altruism, I believe, that is axiomatically out of the question for doctrinaire libertarians.
Yanno this isn’t necessarily bad. I expect it to be a lot easier to convince Joe Schmoe of the evil of (excessive) government, when it’s run from Brussels.
Remember, if you have to give up your sovereignty to a cumbersome federal institution, the US would love to have you.
“love of country….selfless regard for one’s fellow man…obedience to one’s God” as mentioned by George Peery are noble states of mind indeed. But I think he’s just summarised exactly those things that are corroded by the State’s having the excessive powers this list deprecates. In the current state of things (sorry, using the word “state” a lot) one is forced to examine whether, when military action looms for example, support for this would be “love of country” or merely obedience to the State; similarly, selfless regard for one’s fellow man becomes problematic when the State has supposedly taken over most such functions of “regard” in the guise of the Welfare State and a plethora of sweepingly “caring” powers; while God tends rather to be sidelined by the all-powerful State…
Jonathon says “There has not been much discussion in the blog world that I have seen of late about the British government’s apparent fierce determination to make us sign up to the proposed EU Constitution.”
Visit ‘Ironies’, Jonathon, some have said I am becoming almost obsessive on the topic!
I expect the pEU to be a great coming together follwed by a greater coming apart.
In America it took a war of immense proportions to go from a nation of states to a nation state.
The pEU will fare no better. Since Europe is no longer in the habit (maybe) of war to settle political differences I expect the experiment to disintegrate into individual actions (of states) and recriminations.
The sticking point will probably be agricultural subsidies. And Frawence.
George,
You have my thanks for telling the sovereign truth. Libertarianism is a fair-weather friend. In extremis its obsession with government as authoritarianism, and corrupt authoritarianism at that, would lead to national defeat and dissolution.
In peacetime, of course, one has the leisure to believe in the sole sovereignty of the individual, as one can believe in – and get exercised about – the NWO, the burden of third world debut, French duplicity, jewish media ownership, right-wing gun nuts … None of it adds up to much. The people as a whole would never march to war for such trifles. But their sense of country, now that’s a different thing. And the reality is that even Johnathan and Perry would join them – without intellectual justication, I think. Just the fact of love of country and people would do it.
BTW, yes, I know Johnathan and Perry are younger than I am. But this is not a generational thing. The dismissive views that J & P hold towards the nation state (and let’s be clear, we don’t mean some notional entity, we mean OUR nation state – our country) are weeds growing in the present intellectual climate. They are not truths for all time and all circumstances. Politics does not deal in the eternal, and love of country is certainly that.
Incidentally, Perry, I did ask once before – is any branch of your family aeronautical?
George: I agree. Such altruism must have roots in love of country (or race or tribe), selfless regard for one’s fellow man, or (dare I suggest it?) obedience to one’s God.
I understand better than you think. And as I regard ‘love of country’ as something aesthetic considerations of ‘who makes the best cheese/wine/movies’ discussions, love of race as a bizarre fetish not far removed from certifiable mental illness (why not ‘love of foot shape or ‘love of hair colour’?), love of tribe as something best confined to sporting events and obedience to God (which one… Vishnu? Zeus? Allah?) as essentially meaningless, then it will come as no surprise that…
It is precisely such altruism, I believe, that is axiomatically out of the question for doctrinaire libertarians.
…I agree, though I prefer the term ‘moral based’ to doctrinaire . The notion that it is axiomatic that the collective need overrides the individual need for no other reason than it is a collective need (of the nation/race/tribe/God) has formed the foundation of pretty much every tyranny since the dawn of our species. To reject that axiom is indeed a pre-requisite for being a libertarian or classical liberal or social individualist or whatever flavour of anti-collectivist label you prefer. The way the Randians define ‘altruism’ it is indeed always an evil thing, though I reject that as the exclusive meaning of the word and think you can in fact have ‘good’ altruism.
The only moral and hence admirable ‘altruism’ is one based on an individual choice to place the needs of another above your own because you wish to do so for correct objective moral reasons, regardless of fear or favour of the collective. The fireman who dies saving others is both noble and moral in his altruism, because he does what he does because he wants to do that job, not because of some bogus imposed collective obligation. The military prowess and altruistic self-sacrifice of the Waffen SS soldiers who fought for Nazi Germany in World War II was of the highest magnitude, rooted in love of country, race and tribe, with ‘God is with us’ on their belt buckles and their altruism is rooted in defending an evil regime . Altruism is not, in and of itself, an admirable thing.
Perry’s comments above are right on target. Well said.
Guessdworker, how do you know that I am younger than you? Have we met?
My point about sovereignty was, BTW, in part to stress that my opposition to the EU and its works is based not on some fierce love of the UK and distrust of foreigners but primarily on grounds of libertarian principle. I have little time for those eurosceptics who, for example, like to base their arguments on slagging off “dodgy foreigners” etc. My opposition to the EU would remain even if the French, German, Italian and other members were paragons of enterprise and virtue.
And Perry is, as far as I am aware, related to the inventor of some of the finest aircraft of the past century.
Johnathan,
Thanks for the reply. Very depressing. But allow me to float a simply appalling and insane thought at you.
To my fevered and unstill mind, the shores of individualistic and ungoverned libertarianism are lapped by the same waves that break over the multi-culti marxist paradise next door. For sure, your world contains politically free men and women who have willingly given up the loves that identify and sustain them against the tide of life. But the cultural serfs along the beach have lost precisely the same ties of nation and race. Yes, they have been violated. They are equal instead of free. But since they arrived at this condition by the application of external force there is a possibility at least that their honour is in tact. They haven’t given it up under some precious dillusion of intellectual superiority.
To be entirely specific with this little analogy, the waves breaking on both locales have the same origin. They are, horror of horrors, the product of a highly intellectual and self-identified people who cannot and do not, of course, think from our ancient national and racial perspective. To put it plainer still, your Hayek is the marxist’s Habermas.
Now, it may be that libertarianism is damned good shit. There are very many more among us who think the same of cultural marxism. Both dogmas, though, tend to the destruction of our mutual bonds love and self-identification and I, for one, ponder that with some curiosity.
Johnathan Pearce wrote:
There has not been much discussion in the blog world that I have seen of late about the British government’s apparent fierce determination to make us sign up to the proposed EU Constitution.
I wrote a moderately-detailed piece about this issue on 10 September at Unpersons.
Julian Morrison wrote:
Yanno this isn’t necessarily bad. I expect it to be a lot easier to convince Joe Schmoe of the evil of (excessive) government, when it’s run from Brussels.
Unfortunately, Julian, the EU seems to all-too-often operate ‘by stealth’ – its initiatives, restrictive laws and regulations disguised as routine work by the British government and not attributed to the EU – a phenomenon now being referred to as ‘hidden Europe’. I don’t think this practice is going to come to an end any time soon and that will continue to seriously impair the ability of Britons to recognise just how much influence Brussels has when it comes to the creation and enforcement of anti-free market laws and the implementation of socialist policies put forward in the guise of things like ‘social security policy’, ‘human rights protection’, ‘solidarity and equality law’ and so on. If the EU Constitution, in its present form, is implemented by all existing 15 member states I expect it to eventually fall apart when individual national governments slowly become less and less prepared to work with the parts they don’t like if they don’t necessarily have to. This whole thing might actually end up a bit like Stalin’s 1936 USSR Constitution (which guaranteed free speech, amongst other things): A mere token document which no-one can actually rely on in court. However, amongst all this I do not think ‘Joe Schmoe’ will learn much. (How many ‘Joe Schmoes’ do you know that even realise this thing exists?)
Jonathan wrote:
I have little time for those eurosceptics who, for example, like to base their arguments on slagging off “dodgy foreigners” etc. My opposition to the EU would remain even if the French, German, Italian and other members were paragons of enterprise and virtue.
Are the majority of ‘eurosceptics’ you meet opposed to the EU constitution on the grounds that the French, Germans or Italians are involved? I’d venture to say that most people who have read the proposed constitution and understand its implications base their concerns about its implementation on the legal side of the document (I’m sure you appreciate how poorly written it appears to be: There are frequent ambiguities, plenty of vagueness and lots of contraditory parts – not to mention the shake-up of the British justice system involved in allowing this document ‘primacy’ over the constitutions and laws of signatory nations) and/or the likely political consequences (even less accountability in Brussels and more potential for dictatorial-style rule of EU nations from central government) and the related ‘big government’ aspect.
Stephen,
You underestimate Joe. I was talking to him only the other day. He may not understand Giscard’s smoke and mirrors. But he doesn’t have to. His instincts are sound.
Surely empire is evidence of a selfish meme? After that pisspoor digression, It heartens me to see libertarianism is as opposed to grand feats of political construction.
Surely it is clear that the European Constitution will be the only project that saves the European Union, as night follows day. This benefits of membership outweigh any xenophobic arguments that conservative forces may bring to bear.
Indeed, one may say that the liberties of Englishmen will only be realised and safeguarded through the European Court of Justice and the European Commission.
> In America it took a war of immense proportions
> to go from a nation of states to a nation state.
Of course, most citizens in pre-civil war America (women + blacks) were excluded from the democratic process even at the local level. Compared to today’s EU, 19th century United States was a primitive and brutal society.
—
As for the “multilingual political unions won’t work” argument, India has a bigger population and (probably-) more languages. They tend to use English as their lingua franca. Frankly, I don’t see why this must be a showstopper. You think Western Europeans do not have a “broadly similar culture?” I disagree: there has been cross-border interaction since the days of the Roman Empire.
MARCU$
“I disagree: there has been cross-border interaction since the days of the Roman Empire.”
Of course, that “cross-border interaction” includes blitzkriegs, D-Day, trains full of Jews on their way to Auschwitz, and the Rape of Berlin.
A high degree of interaction with your neighbors is no guarantee of peace, even in this modern age. Look at what happened to Yugoslavia.
Like the man said, “good fences make good neighbors.” The EU project is all about tearing down the fences. It may all work out fine, but given the deep tidal stresses at work in Europe today, I venture to guess that the EU project may, at the end of the day, increase violence as it is undone, rather than preventing violence.