These simple truisms go a long way to explaining MP & blogger Tom Watson‘s support for passing laws regarding the use of fireworks. On his blog, and on this blog in our comments section, the Honourable Member of Parliament for West Bromwich East calls for more regulation and makes it clear that fireworks will simply be banned if that does not produce the desired effects. And yet when talking about an incident in which a woman was injured by some idiot throwing a firework he himself notes:
Granted the little thug that conducted this assault was breaking existing laws
�and then proceeds to ignore that fact from then on. I do not know Tom Watson personally but I heard him speak in Houses of Parliament and he seems both affable and reasonable for a politician. But as Brian Micklethwait’s article today says regarding the ‘problem’ of obesity, it is only to be expected that a person whose salary depends on passing more laws to, well, always insist on passing more laws.
The United States, for all the many, varied and egregious flaws in that constitutional republic, has at least managed to some degree to place whole sections of civil society off-limits to the law making Tom Watson’s of the world. For example free speech is largely protected against erosion in ways that have not proved to be the case in Britain with the advent of so called ‘hate speech’ laws.
In so many ways it is where the USA has managed to constrain regulatory democracy from intruding wherever vox populi wishes it to, and the resulting politicizations of social interactions that entails, that its vast economic power and admirable civil virtues spring. Similarly it is where the United States has departed from those principles (RICO, civil forfeiture, IRS reversal of burden of proof, etc.) that things have gone very badly wrong.
And therein lays the problem at the heart of modern democratic states: so much of society has been made amenable to literal force (i.e. political action) that it makes little difference in the long run who is in control of the democratic means of coercion, the end result for civil liberties and several ownership (including self-ownership) will be the same. Face it, in Britain there is little to choose between Tory Michael Howard and NuLabour David Blunkett when it comes to which of them has abridged more civil liberties whilst serving as Home Secretary. Likewise, Janet Reno may have presided over the mass murder of a bunch of wackos in Waco, Texas, but is anyone really going to claim John Ashcroft is not continuing the process of shredding the much vaunted Bill of Rights?
The problem is the whole meta-context of seeing as axiomatic that politics is always acceptable just so long as it gets the imprimatur from a plurality of the politically engaged. Until enough people are willing to look to the moral basis of a law and simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of laws just because they are laws, we will always have politicians singing their siren song for your votes to empower not you, but themselves, by offering to solve your every problem with more laws. It is not enough to just not vote for them, you must find innovative ways to not cooperate with them.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
-George Washington
And strange, isn’t it, that MPs are ever keener on passing laws, and better paid for it, as their influence on those laws decreases? Anyone would think they were being deliberately distracted from the task of scrutiny…
The first desirable quality in an MP is a propensity to vote against anything that either he didn’t understand or he wasn’t genuinely satisfied was an improvement on the status quo. Almost nothing would pass the Commons if that rational approach were commonly held. Fat chance.
MPs and voters ought to know that they aren’t paid for the quantity of laws they make. They aren’t paid to be social workers for their constituents. They aren’t paid to go on fact-finding trips abroad. They are there to ensure the government raises and spends money properly and that legislation is sound.
What MPs really (and correctly) understand, though, is that they are party placemen who must hiss, boo, and cheer at appropriate points to satisfy their masters in the constituency of their loyalty, and make as much populist noise as possible for the benefit of the yellow press.
There’s no point in having a House of Commons at all if it is just a ceremonial office for endorsing executive decree. Unless current practice changes, we might as well get rid of it and acknowledge the elected dictatorship in the form of the constitution as well as its substance.
Perry wrote,
“it is only to be expected that a person whose salary depends on passing more laws to, well, always insist on passing more laws.”
Not true. An MP’s salary depends on nothing more than getting elected and staying out of prison.
It is certainly unrelated to productivity in terms of passing laws. MPs put forward silly laws, especially Private Members’ bills because they want to. It is only when MPs are convinced that such laws will lose them votes, or if local parties select libertarian-minded MPs that they will stop doing so.
Perry, do you think it would be a good thing to have more libertarians in the House of Commons and if so, what do you think is the approach most likely to achieve ths?
John: I realise that MPs are not paid-per-law but the reality is that in order to buy votes (for that is what they do) and thereby stay in their jobs, may must make laws, for it is from doing so for factional interests that their power springs.
And no, I do not want ‘more’ libertarians in Parliament (there are of course none). I want a system of government in which the power of the state is so constrained in the extent to which it may regulate a person’s life that it does not matter over much what any given MP believes in… that may happen via all manner of mechanisms, such as technological changes, economic pressures, creeping de-legitimization via apathy, civil disorder or whatever… but democratic party politics ain’t one of them, given the way the system currently works in Britain.
If the Free State Project in New Hampshire achieve even a third of its goals, I may well change my views of ‘working the system’ in the USA but I realistically see no such prospects in the UK.
It is a regular feature of Irish political commentary to bemoan the level of interaction with their constituents displayed by our TDs (MPs). Due to the nature of the proportional representation system, TDs and prospective TDs must keep more than just their loyal supporters sweet so they hold these constituency clinics, solving problems or claiming credit for solving problems. Our political elite complain that the TDs spend so much time in their constituencies when “they should be legislating instead”. Even though most of these parish pumps are only interested in distributing government pork, minor (benefits etc) and major (local infrastructure projects etc) I think I’d prefer that they were so preoccupied. The pundit’s dream of an activist disengaged elite implementing ever more layers of legislation and regulation is my nightmare.
Perry, I would like to see a much more free country. Where I think we part company is that I do not think encouraging civil disorder is the best way of going about it. Quite the opposite. Civil disorder will give the state, with the backing of the public, a great excuse to remove even more freedom. At present, it looks like the electorate have reached something like their tolerance limit as far as taxes are concerned. If a siege mentality is created, where people want the Government to tighten national security to protect them, they will be willing to pay more for it. The argument that ID cards should be resisted on principle is one I am sure we will both make, but it is also helpful to be able to point out to people how much it will cost them. This argument will have no appeal when people feel really threatened by disorder. On the contrary, peace, security and prosperity are the conditions in which the ideas of liberty are more readily accepted and statist arguments for more restrictions on freedom are more easily dismissed.
As for creating systems which restrict politicians from interfering in things that should not concern them, who exactly is going to establish a constitutional settlement? Politicians or bloggers?
If all politicians were the same regardless of what they believe in, why on earth would you support the US and British states in going to war with Saddam Hussein’s regime? That is an extreme example, but personally I would rather live in a social democracy than under communism and I would rather live in a neo-liberal country than under social democracy. None of these are ideal but some are better than others. I also believe individuals do make a difference, whatever the system. If nobody even puts the case for freedom in the legislature, don’t be surprised if freedom is not just eroded – it won’t even be an issue.
The United States, for all the many, varied and egregious flaws in that constitutional republic, has at least managed to some degree to place whole sections of civil society off-limits to the law making Tom Watson’s of the world. For example free speech is largely protected against erosion in ways that have not proved to be the case in Britain with the advent of so called ‘hate speech’ laws.
I’m a bit taken aback by this. We have such laws here in the US as well, and have been used just as capriciously (usually based on who actually speaks, but what and by whom). Our (publicly financed) institutions of higher education are now founded on such principles. A whole new generation of PC drones are incubating as we speak. So if is not as bad, it soon will be. I have a very unscientifically determined opinion that the US is just 20 years behind our Western Civilization ‘brothers’ (e.g. UK, Germany, France) in all of those aspects that erode liberty discussed here. Perhaps my viewpoint is skewed somewhat as I live in the Progressive (in the left-liberal sense) State of Wisconsin, so I may see more examples on average than the rest of the US.
Perry, I would like to see a much more free country. Where I think we part company is that I do not think encouraging civil disorder is the best way of going about it. Quite the opposite. Civil disorder will give the state, with the backing of the public, a great excuse to remove even more freedom.
When do you decide that enough (of the same) is enough? Do you strangle slowly, or risk operating outside the established order to perhaps change it? Worrying that disorder will only encourage them only works if one isn’t overly pressed to begin with, but when liberty is slowly ground away to a critical point, and is only likely to continue apace, something does need to be done. Inaction is not an option when a certain point is reached, especially when the system itself is so perverted that hoping to tether a line to the ‘body politic’ and pull it into a more favorable direction is an empty hope. Certainly not advocating armed revolt by any means, but perhaps some properly placed, and logically connected, social disobedience is the only option (tax revolt for example).
John:
That is not what I said and in many previous articles I have pointed out the absurdity of equating the worst excesses of Tony Blair and George Bush with a mass murderous tyrant like Saddam Hussain. No, what I said was that in an ideal situation, the state would be so constrained that then it would not be such a big deal what a politician thought because they would not have the excessive power at their disposal that they currently do.
I am not encouraging civil disorder… far from it in fact… I am just pointing out that this route is indeed one way that things can change radically. Much as I hate using them as an example, last time I looked Sinn Fein/IRA is sharing political power in Ulster and they are just a minority within a minority. Voting is not the only way and whilst I do not rejoice in that fact, a fact is what it is. But no, I am not urging people to start throwing bombs to get us into some libertarian utopian future… in the long run I suspect economic reality will get us there regardless.
Toolkien: other way around, I think. We start much of the most egregious political nonsense – grief counseling, prosecution based on recovered memories, hate speech law, loonier environmental stuff – and launch it eastward. Happily, much of the above is starting to pass off in the US – though, one dreads, to be replaced by newer wicked political falsehoods.
We really do have to saw California off the mainland, one of these days.
We really do have to saw California off the mainland, one of these days.
I’ll see you down in Arizona Bay…..
I guess the first half of my nic is not a mystery anymore….
Toolkien,
I’m in the middle of a review of First Amendment jurisprudence, and while I agree that there are some unacceptable limits on speech in this country (largely related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and sexual harassment in employment), hate speech laws are unconstitutional.
In R.A.V. vs. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down a hate speech law used to prosecute a man for burning a cross on a black family’s lawn. The court made it clear that government may not make content-based laws affecting speech (or expressive conduct).
The US Supreme Court is loudly criticized abroad for its ban on content or view-point based speech laws. When the Canadian Supreme Court ruled on hate speech laws its Chief Justice spent much time and energy detailing and criticizing the American view of freedom of speech:
Though I have found the American experience tremendously helpful in coming to my own conclusions regarding this appeal, and by no means reject the whole of the First Amendment doctrine, in a number of respects I am thus dubious as to the applicability of this doctrine in the context of a challenge to hate propaganda legislation. . . . [T]he special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitates a departure from the view, reasonably prevalent in America at present, that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with guarantee of free expression.
The laws Perry references are based on an entirely different theory of law than our system. They are rooted in notions of group rights rather than individual rights.
Toolkien: some properly placed, and logically connected, social disobedience is the only option (tax revolt for example).
I think a handfull of libertarians getting themselves fined or imprisoned for not paying their taxes or perhaps, ignoring doible yellow lines is not going to make one jot of difference to what the political class does or thinks. It would be just too small a problem to register. If hundreds of thousands joined in then you might get something back ( like the fuel protest achieved a couple of pence off a litre of petrol for a few months, but no real progress). But where, exactly is this mass movement going to come from? When you have a tiny minority, civil disobedience will only make a difference if you can count on the sympathy of the public because only then will the politicians take notice. Perry’s example of the IRA, while a despicable organisation, is an example of a tiny minority making a difference because of the extreme measures they are willing to take. If you are unwilling to go to such lengths, as I hope libertarians living within a relatively free civil society should be, civil disobedience is a bit of a joke. The state can and will crush you.
If there are going to be politicians like Tom Watson in Parliament discussing the idea of the Government ‘doing something’ to stop people enjoying fatty foods, I would rather have as many people in the parliament as possible who will fight that sort of thing, even if they don’t pass the Perry Purity test, as possible. This might mean on occasions, voting for them, or even campaigning for a particular candidate in a particular constituency. Perry said,
in an ideal situation, the state would be so constrained that then it would not be such a big deal what a politician thought because they would not have the excessive power at their disposal that they currently do.
and until that ideal situation comes about, it is a big deal what politicans think and do. Politicians are influenced by what they read, who talks to them, who shuns them and so on. Economic reality will make a difference but so will the views of those in power who have the responsibility of formulating policies to react to it. Also, on such issues as civil liberties, there is no natural mechanism which will lead to a more libertarian society. It really does depend on the views of those in power. If they value freedom, fine. If not, there is still the self-preservation instinct which translates to vote maximisation. If it becomes widespread knowledge that libertarians never vote, then libertarian arguments are the one set of views that politicians will calculate they can afford to ignore. The state becomes even more oppressive as a result.
If, on the other hand, it became widespread knowledge that libertarians are a highly motivated bunch of people who will actively campaign against politicans who introduce oppressive laws and will always vote for the more libertarian candidate in any election, politicans will take note.
If the choice a politician faces is to put forward a bill to placate a small lobby group which will lose him ‘hundreds of libertarian votes’ or to ignore the lobby group, keep quiet and keep collecting his MP’s salary, what choice will he make?
Abby,
I do see what you are saying. But there is a notion of the net effects of the penetration of the State into ordinary aspects of our lives, especially those that would be better left exclusively to private relationships. An example would be State provided education and the Codes of Conduct in place. Since the individual is ‘contracting’ for the education, constraints on free speech meet a different standard. But as the State now dominates the landscape, as far as higher education, and are eliminating private competition, what is the net result? This elimination of competition reduces the choices for the average individual, and many end up going to State U and the PC culture that dominates.
When the State eventually becomes all, bringing along its PC pogrom, and the individual is formally able to choose whether to contract or not, but effectively has no choice, what is the result? In the larger picture, that is the eventual outcome of the expansion of the Federal government, eclipsing all else, and the internal codified ‘laws’ of conduct it brings with it.
The example I am most familiar with is the endless regulations that attach to Federal dollars. One could logically say that if you want the Federal dollars you live by their rules. What happens when the Feds finally tax all the dollars away? The private sector, where hate speech is not punishable, all becomes the public sector where the rules don’t apply. It is in essence the UK model you’ve discussed.
Abby,
What is a group but a collection of individuals? If the basic rights of individuals is provided for, the dynamics of the individuals in the group will often see to any ‘rights’ that the group, as an object, needs. Where that fails is when the inclusionary or exclusionary characteristic of the group is imposed apart from the group itself.
I strongly support the basic concept of the US version of freedom of expression. True freedom of speech requires the freedom to utter speech that is offensive, just as much as the freedom to utter non offensive speech.
When you start arguing that certain types of speech are exempt from free expression, you open the door to all sorts of ‘politically correct’ restrictions, based on some prevailing attitude.
When you argue that hate propaganda (whatever that might be) needs to be outlawed, what criteria gets used to determine what constitutes that hate propaganda? Sooner or later, such a decision becomes a wedge for any perceived slight or offense to become categorized as ‘hate’, and soon, you can’t say anything at all without offending someone else.
There *are* valid restrictions to absolute freedom of speech (inciting violence, for one), but offense (no matter who is offended, or why) is not a valid restriction.
I think a handfull of libertarians getting themselves fined or imprisoned for not paying their taxes or perhaps, ignoring doible yellow lines is not going to make one jot of difference to what the political class does or thinks. It would be just too small a problem to register. If hundreds of thousands joined in then you might get something back ( like the fuel protest achieved a couple of pence off a litre of petrol for a few months, but no real progress). But where, exactly is this mass movement going to come from? When you have a tiny minority, civil disobedience will only make a difference if you can count on the sympathy of the public because only then will the politicians take notice. Perry’s example of the IRA, while a despicable organisation, is an example of a tiny minority making a difference because of the extreme measures they are willing to take. If you are unwilling to go to such lengths, as I hope libertarians living within a relatively free civil society should be, civil disobedience is a bit of a joke. The state can and will crush you.
But that crushing may make one a martyr and bring others to the cause. In the US, at its foundation, some perceived a crisis in the success of the Federalization of the country (even once the constitution was ratified) and there were many small sections who resisted the tax collectors (Whiskey Rebellion and others). In some cases, when the government reacted overly much, those who were once sympathetic to Federalism became staunch republicans (in that era’s sense of the word). One might be other noble or quixotic in their attempts, but perhaps to some, watching the endless grind toward the inevitable bursting of the welfare/statist bubble, especially when they are likely to be the ones most affected by the financial fallout, the movement to some sort of action may felt to be necessary when it’s not too late. The unrest created by a new system now is nothing compared to what is out on the horizon. The unfunded social burden created by the State is still a fraction of what it will be.
And isn’t it a sad state of affairs, when a proper government should not rise above its people, and have no greater sovereignty than an individual who makes it up, that the notion of being crushed so easily is accepted as a normal condition?
And isn’t it a sad state of affairs
Well, yes. It is a reality that the present state of affairs would lead to civil disobedience by libertarians being crushed. It is also a reality that the media is unlikely even to report such ‘martyrdom’, let alone sympathetically.
watching the endless grind toward the inevitable bursting of the welfare/statist bubble, . . . some sort of action may felt to be necessary when it’s not too late
Agreed. The action I propose is to use the political process to ensure people I agree with get elected and people I don’t do not. Put people who wish to roll back the state in positions of power and they will do a better job than those who want to increase it.
The action you seem to be proposing is to fix in people’s minds the idea that to be a libertarian you must be willing to cast aside your obligations to your family and sacrifice yourself as a martyr to the cause. Forgive me if that seems a bit of unattractive proposition.
Agreed. The action I propose is to use the political process to ensure people I agree with get elected and people I don’t do not.
With the wide ranging choices between Repulicrats and Democans why don’t I get a comfortable feeling? The concept is that there are no major party candidates to choose from, hence why libertartianism is the chosen option. At one point, when the Republican Party had some level of a small government contingent I could abide the religious right that seemed parceled with it. Since Bush I and II, with their thousand points of light etc etc, I have lost much of the connection to the Republican Party. I have small hope that my ability to directly (or indirectly) elect 5 persons from the two ‘wide ranging’ major parties (President, Vice-President (titular at best), 2 senators, and 1 Representative) to oversee a $2 trillion annual budget, executed by thousands of bureaucrats not accountable to much of anything, is going to make much of a difference to slow the expansion of the Federal Government. Playing within the system will not work as the the system is broken. Only working outside the system will have any effect. And I am certain you are right that the media, with their left leaning interests, will not show much sympathy. But on the other hand doing nothing is to ultimately sacrifice what remains of your life to tyranny.
Too dramatic? Perhaps. Am I arming to the teeth tomorrow? No. Am I bucking the system as we speak? Not overly much. But I am obviously disgusted with status quo and its not going to take much to push me over the edge. The time will come, as the promises made by the Welfare State come to nothing, and the IOU’s become delinquent, there is going to be a major paradigm shift, either to complete Statism or back to some system based on individualism. At that time, more than complacency, and assuming that a vote matters between one collector versus another, is going to be the order of the day. Whatever flailing attempts there have been to limit government (ie privatize savings (the first shot over the bow that the State will eventually be removing the IOU’s from the table)) are always met ultimately with more expansion. All one has to do is look at the US Federal Budget forecasts to see that it is not too long into the future when sustaining credit is no longer an option. Then it comes out of the people by force, and that is going to be a real fine time to behold.
If there is any interest on the future ahead go here (not as a link as is too big, just copy and drop into browser).
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
Click on 7-Federal Debt. The US Federal Debt alone is projected to be $9.3 trillion by 2008 and that doesn’t include the new proposed drug entitlement! $9.3 trillion is about 5 fiscal years in debt-imagine personally being 5 take home pay years in uncollateralized debt and maybe the picture clears a bit. And that is just 2008, what about 2018? 2028? Gee, who do I vote for so it’s on $20 trillion in 2018 instead of $25 trillion. That’s the choice if you stick with the system.
toolkien: All I can say is… amen to that.
With the wide ranging choices between Repulicrats and Democans why don’t I get a comfortable feeling? The concept is that there are no major party candidates to choose from, hence why libertartianism is the chosen option. At one point, when the Republican Party had some level of a small government contingent I could abide the religious right that seemed parceled with it.
I think we are at cross purposes here because both Perry and I live in the UK and I was implicitly talking about UK political parties. I just don’t know the structures in the US with enough detail to advise on that. Anyway, what happened to that small government contingent? It is remarkably easy for a committed group to change the direction of a British political party. The ‘modernisers’ took over the Labour party and before that the militant tendency had a major influence on the policies. In the Conservative Party, the Eurosceptics dramatically hardened the party policy after a couple of elections in which Dr Gabb’s Candidlist project allowed party activists to weed out many europhile candidates. Voting is not enough. Engagement works. It’s just that some libertarians don’t seem to want it to work for them. The fact is that there is no alternative. Actively pursuing a policy to make things worse in the hope that somewhere along the line the people will rise up and create a libertarian utopia is pie in the sky. Heard it all before, but that time it was the ‘inevitable’ crisis of capitalism that was always just around the corner.
I think we are at cross purposes here because both Perry and I live in the UK and I was implicitly talking about UK political parties.
I don’t know as much about the political process of the UK at least in terms of the level of impact an individual could hope to have realitive to policy at the national level. Suffice it to say that here in the US, for all the perceived ‘liberty’ we seem to enjoy from the perspective of some continental libertarians, we do not actually have such liberty and we are losing ground every day. Can a person, who is entitled to elect effectively 4 representatives (excluding the Vice President, 1 to the executive function and 3 to the split legislative function) to national stage which holds power over $2+ trillion, ever hope to think they are being represented, and it is all not a bunch of 1984-ish smoke and mirrors? That is the system as it stands here in the US, with one party much like the other, at least the electable portion anyway.
Actively pursuing a policy to make things worse in the hope that somewhere along the line the people will rise up and create a libertarian utopia is pie in the sky. Heard it all before, but that time it was the ‘inevitable’ crisis of capitalism that was always just around the corner.
But it happened once when we overthrew the oppressive hand of government of the Crown about 225 years ago (wink wink). Seriously, the early foundation of the US was as libertarian as any collective of people has gotten (ironically while a portion were considered subhuman property) and was a more proper foundation to have built upon. Unfortunately, over the last 100 years, especially over the last 70, we have become a Welfare State within a shell of supposed capitalism and individualism.
The cycle of federal government domination must be broken, it doesn’t mean a libertarian ideal will necessarily emerge, but it must be better than the endless drive toward collectivism and control. Unfortunately neither main party here in the US is willing to call a halt to the madness, hence the need for working outside the system. If it is a tax revolt of some sort, or some other means to protest the process to at least get the people to think where all the goodies are coming from maybe at least some good will have been accomplished. Unfortunately the ability to capture people’s attention and sensibilities is much harder today as people are doped continually by ‘bread and circuses’.
Analyzed another way, a majority of the people were not in favor of revolution here in America, and the resistance to oppression grew over a period of time, especially when the costs of warfare and ’empire’ caught up with the British Treasury and the decision to finance the shortfall on the backs of the ‘colonists’ was the solution. Reasonable discussions between American leaders and British representatives went no where fast, turning moderate loyalists into revolutionaries. I can only hope that something similar will happen in the next few decades when the welfare state bill comes due in a similar fashion.
But it will take concerned people to make it happen, and it won’t happen by pulling a lever in a voting booth. Will it take another Boston Tea Party or a Bunker Hill? I don’t know. Am I completely fantastic with my sky is falling attitude? Maybe, but such massive debt as we are facing in the next few years, and the promises made with unfunded mandates, and the number of people operating under collectivist illusions, has never been this massive, at least in the recent history of the world. Considering it is all based in a ponzi scheme, and when the new base layer is not to be found, the whole thing is going to blow, no question about it. Getting people to see it does not work by being coy about it.
Toolkien,
I share your sense of injury and frustration with America. I feel as if I have been mugged in broad daylight in a crowd of people and no one seems to have noticed.
Higher educational institutions today are indeed rife with repression. I entered college in the mid-90’s when the PC stormtroopers had just bullied and intimidated their way into power at schools throughout the country. There is a pervasive climate of fear which infiltrates every part of school life. After a while, the censor is not just external but internal as well. In my mind I reason that it is better to be silent and avoid harassment than to publicly voice an opinion which is bound to attract censure (many of my views have this quality).
In law school it is even worse. I once witnessed the violent verbal castration of a classmate who dared to use the term “maiden name.” To this day whenever I smell a burning bra I am reminded of the look of stark terror on that boy’s face.
So, yes, I share your frustration, but I don’t share your sense of hopelessness: there are powerful forces working in our favor.
First of all, baby boomers have forgotten that students don’t appreciate aging professors spewing propadanda down their throats and then demanding to be thanked for their generous gift. Leftism is becoming passe on campus these days; all the activism and energy and ideas are coming from the right. The right has the added appeal of being publicly persecuted for its activism by administrators — something college students love.
Second, while the American people lack the discipline to head off the coming budget collapse, there are deeper sources of power than Congress. The Supreme Court has grown immensly powerful in the last fifty years. It has all the constitutional tools it needs to cut the federal government to whatever size it likes.
It doesn’t do so now because it knows no one wants change: if it made sweeping changes it could face a potential constitutional coup, a la FDR. But if the court sees reform as inevitable and necessary to avoid imminent disaster, then it has the textual constitutional support to remake the government into what the Founders’ prescribed.
But in the end, I am optimistic about our eventual fate. Past reports of our death and decline have proven exaggerated. We are tougher than we appear, I suspect we will get through this just fine.
Perry: I’m afraid I can’t let these lines go without comment,
” Much as I hate using them as an example, last time I looked Sinn Fein/IRA is sharing political power in Ulster and they are just a minority within a minority. Voting is not the only way and whilst I do not rejoice in that fact, a fact is what it is. But no, I am not urging people to start throwing bombs to get us into some libertarian utopian future”
The thing is, there isn’t a halfway point between “conventional” political activity and terrorism. The position of a terrorist is to use violence as a kind of blackmail to achieve a political aim which would normally be insufficiently appealing. Sinn Fein didn’t obtain the concessions that have assisted their rise to (quasi) power by street demonstrations or agit prop but because they have a standing army capable of assassinations and bomb attacks. The only way Libertarians could emulate SF is to assemble such an army and carry out terrorist attacks. This would be an appalling vista.
I don’t maintain that “conventional” political activity is the only option open to Libertarians – propaganda works, as does encouraging mass non-compliance with a whole range of regulations, taxes etc. – but I do believe that conventional political activity is probably the most effective in the long run. By this I mean influencing the Conservative party in a libertarian direction.
I do not disagree with that, Frank… I did say ‘Sinn Fein/IRA’ not Sinn Fein. But my real point is that if a group is willing to go outside the law and resist, they do not have to be a majority. I do not agree that the only way to emulate Sinn Fein is to start killing people, I think just getting enough people to stop cooperating for long enough (20 years if required) and building a culture of resistance can make a real difference in the long run. By comparison with Sinn Fein, Captain Gatso’s antics smashing traffic cameras are small beer but it is violence of a sort and very much the sort of thing I have heard being openly talked about by some Countryside Alliance people. This suggests to me that this sort of ‘active’ non-cooperation may become the wave of the future. I have mixed feelings about the CA myself but I think it could get ‘interesting’ in the not too distant future.
Yes, but I think you are missing the point about why terrorism has been effective for SF/IRA. One consequence of the “war” they waged was widespread condemnation but also war-weariness and a desire for peace at (almost) any cost. To achieve this state of mind in your opponent (and by opponent I mean not just the nominal “enemy” of the UK government but also the general British population and Irish population) requires a significant level of violence, mere inconvenience doesn’t cut it.
You might also note that they also have quite a bit of support in the minority nationalist “community” and are likely to be the majority party of that “community” by the next vote. The Loyalists who waged a similar terrorist campaign are, compared to SF, impotent because terrorism was in the end insufficient without any electoral success.
Frank is dead on the money here.
In America it seems to take a lot of money and campaigning to get influence. In the UK you can go and talk to your MP just by attending a constituency surgery or writing a letter which I think most tend to read and respond to themselves.
Unless they are a party leader in which case you may get a brush off from an underling.
That doesn’t guarantee they will agree with you but it does mean you get to put arguments to them.
In the Conservative Party (I don’t know about the others) you can even offer to stand for Parliament without needing sponsors or tons of cash ( or even, it seems being a party member!)
Anyone can telephone Central Office and get an application form for the Parliamentary List. There is a basic up front moron/nutter/extremist screening process and an assessment centre like many job interviews for large companies. If you pass the assessment centre, which was made a lot easier recently to ‘broaden’ the range of available candidates, you get put on the list and can apply for seats. From then it is a case of interviews by constituency associations who have a lot of local discretion. Usually there will be a panel of ten or eleven local activists in the first stage, who whittle down the CVs in a paper sift then interview a few chosen candidates. You could be anything from a closet Marxist to a libertarian. If there are five or six people on that committee who like you and what you say then you are in with a good chance of getting selected. That five or six people just could be five or six libertarians who ignored Perry’s advice and got involved in their local association.
I have one observation not often made in Lib (or any ) circles these days. I hear a lot of talk about rights – hell, I yammer on endlessly about them myself. But I hear little acknowledgment that there are corresponding responsibilities.
For instance – if one is displeased with the Police, it might be wise to remember that the police hold no powers that are not held by the citizens themselves. This is Blackletter law, not just constitutional pettifoggery. We have delegated that power to the police, but what is delegated may be reclaimed. More importantly, in an absolute sense, for good or ill, we as citizens are accountable to each other for the actions of our delegates.
If we choose to bear arms, then there is a implied debt to act in defense of fellow citizens because one can. Otherwise how can any mutual obligation exist? Again, delegation of the general duty of upholding the law to police does not exempt us from the responsibility.
In a larger meta sense, I see great enthusiasm with the idea of freedom from government but I see no great attention to the idea of what happens if we get our wish.
As far as I’m concerned, the only legitimate role for government IS as a delegate, and ONLY when such things are truly in the common interest.
Things that are, in other words, natural monopolies. Things where every citizen has the same stake.
I see a legitimate Libertarian government as being essentially an insurance company; sharing risks and creating economies of scale and ensuring that those things that we all depend upon are not monopolized by the few at the expense of the many.
In pursuing that function, there will have to be an equitable trade of power donated for value received.
This is a leading to a concept you don’t hear much mentioned in Libertarian, Republican or Democratic circles is “the tragedy of the commons.”
A “commons” is any resource used as though it belongs to all. In other words, when anyone can use a shared resource simply because one wants or needs to use it, then one is using a commons. For example, all land is part of our commons because it is a component of our life support and social systems.
A commons is destroyed by uncontrolled use—neither intent of the user, nor ownership are important. An example of uncontrolled use is when one can use land (part of our commons) any way one wants.” —Garrett Hardin, TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
This is amplified by Herchel Elliot:
Specifically, Hardin’s thought experiment with an imaginary commons demonstrates the futility — the absurdity — of much traditional ethical thinking. The sad fate of the imaginary commons on which people pasture their herds proves that moral principles can be refuted by facts — the consequences caused when people live by those principles. It shows that if any ethics makes it advantageous for individuals or groups to increase their demands on the biological commons while it forces everyone to share equally the damage which that behavior causes, then the demise of the whole — the ecosystem which supports that behavior– is inevitable. Surely such an ethics is absurd. It refutes itself in the sense that it requires or allows ethical behavior which denies the possibility of further ethical behavior.”
A General Statement of the Tragedy of the Commons
I would suggest that those who confuse Libertarianism for License – and there are many – study these links.
“Your right to make a fist ends at the tip of my nose,” is no less correct if the one fist slightly offends many noses or more correct if it shatters just one; there is a line, and each of us must be accountable to ourselves for not stepping over it – and alert to trespass, major or minor.
Otherwise, I humbly, yet responsibly suggest that creating a Libertarian political movement without any reference to what “Liberty” itself means is “rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic.”
One final quotation:
“It is the newly proposed infringements (on our use of a commons) that we vigorously oppose; cries of “rights” and “freedom” fill the air. But what does “freedom” mean? When men mutually agreed to pass laws against robbing, mankind became more free, not less so. Individuals locked into the logic of the commons are free only to bring on universal ruin; once they see the necessity of mutual coercion, they become free to pursue other goals. I believe it was Hegel who said, “Freedom is the recognition of necessity” (Hardin, 1968, p.1248). “