Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom
– Friedrich Hayek
…or perhaps not
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayMay 17th, 2009 |
 17 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Perhaps a new generation ignorant of history.
Democracy is not freedom. What a revolutionary concept. Hayek has said much more impressive things. This is elementary.
Democracy, when used to abridge natural rights, does, however, legitimize the state more effectively than most other forms of government.
Churchill said something like “Democracy is the least bad form of government that has been tried,” or something like that. He did not define good and I am afraid he may have had a different yardstick for it than most libertarians.
Curiously, he did not advocate knocking down all barriers to a direct democracy. If democracy were in his opinion so great, you would think he would seek to amplify its effects.
Ursula Le Guin’s “The Disposessed” treats a similar theme in which a world with no government run on “classical anarchist” lines results in a kind of enforced mediocrity. Obviously an anarchist commune is not the same as a democracy but I feel that the point still stands.
A lot of anarchist communes turn into democracies, requiring the consent of all adults before anything gets changed- 100% assent.
And democracy is all right in its’ place- the public domain. I believe in private property monarchies, and public property democracies, my version of minarchy.
Yeah, it’s so elementary that the vast majority cannot see it.
Sadly Le Guin’s idea of anarchism is the communal annarchism tradition – i.e. where the words “state” or “government” are not used but there is total enforced control by “the people” (or whatever term for the state is used) over all aspects of life.
Respecting private property of people (both in their bodies, only the reasoning will of a person can own their own body no one else can rightly own it, and their possessions) is the only way there can be ordered liberty – as Murry Rothbard correctly put it “human rights are property rights”.
Sadly Le Guin does not understand this at all – and her alternative planet in the book (where private property is tolerated) is a planet of oppression, poverty, racism, sexism (and on and on).
Still at least Le Guin uses the word “propertarian” – a useful adding to the language (I believe the lady was the first person to use the word in a political sense).
The left may steal the word “liberal” or even “libertarian” – but they will not touch “propertarian”.
In history organizations that have the word “property” in their title have proved very resistant to leftist infiltration and influence – because the word makes the basic point of dispute (private property right) clear.
For example, the late 18th century Association for the Defence of Liberty and Property (many thousands of armed men in Britain who stood against the import of the French Revolution)….. and the late 19th century Liberty and Property Defence League.
Ayn Rand said to a critic of her use of the word “selfishness” – “I use this word for the reasons that make you afraid of it”.
Property is a word like that – people who call themselves “anti political correctness” or even “libertarians” but then turn out to be Obama supporting far left people (“I only want government to do for people what they can do for themselves”, Bill M. – but this turns out to be a very long list of things and all the financing of the government, of course, comes from the people) tend to shy away from explicit defence of private property, at least of basing their political philosophy on this.
Thus we can know friends from foes.
It needs be said again:
DEMOCRACY IS A PROCESS NOT A CONDITION.
It is the application (use) of the process that creates conditions that can only be described as “less bad.”
I recall reading that there was (or is) an inscription on the gate to New Delhi (to the effect):
Democracy does not descend to a people, a people must rise to Democracy
That is as true for the use of the process as it is for for the conditions sought.
Perhaps our electorates are losing the capacity to properly use the process.
RSS,
You are absolutely correct that democracy is a process and freedom is a condition that one hopes results, largely, from the process of democracy.
I still am not convinced the democratic process is less bad as a process than other processes in order to create the condition of freedom, etc.
Almost no Americans I have met (and I have met quite a few) would dispute that democracy is least bad of any political process that has been tried.
In any case, my point that Churchill was not exactly a fervent supporter of reforms within the U.K. to create a more direct democracy stands. Since he apparently thought democracy is the least bad form of government, why did he not seek to implement reforms towards a more direct democracy?
Chicaqo –
Let me clarify:
The point is not that the process is “less bad” it is that that the way the process is applied can result in conditions that can be described as “less bad.”
“Direct” and plebicitory applications have differing results within the same social orders when those orders become less homogenous or more heterogenous as has been the continuing case in the U K. Churchill was aware of the currents of change and would not have thought the same application or use of the process (without some buffer or “filter” – which the parliamentary format does not provide) [an offsetting “Magistrate” role might?] would have the same resultant conditions as in the historic past of which he was a student.
In the U S, we formerly had a “filter” in the legislative selection of Senators. In going to “direct” election, we now have Senators who act in a representative capacity.
Churchill probably had read Burke, and so didn’t want to introduce anything except small steps, carefully considered. Wholesale change was never on his agenda.
And history backs this up. I sometimes think that Britain should have a written constitution, but then I see how it has evolved throughout the ages without such a document, and it seems an adequate arrangement. Lots of states that go in for wholesale changes never stop experimenting, until they exhaust themselves (i.e., the French Revolution, which ended up with the leaders wanting to change everything, including the calendar!)
Also, fromChicago, you seem to be suffering from Americo-centricism. When Churchill used the term ‘Democracy’, he probably meant the Parliamentary type of democracy as practiced by Britain.
No system other than democracy has been as effective at enabling the bloodless transfer of power. This is where 95% of its benefits flow from.
Of course it can be argued that some democratic systems are better at facilitating this than others and this is the debate that should be had – which democratic institutions are better for what we want – liberty and peace.
Peace maybe, but liberty? For now we are heading very much in the other direction, all very democratically. Evenry now and again it needs to get a bit bloody.
A true cemocracy is lynch mob of 13 men and one guy they want to hang. Majority rules. Clearly we have a republic and clearly it is being undermined by Obama.
Edmund Burke is often misunderstood – although a lot of disinformation was put about him long ago, in order that people misunderstand him.
Edmund Burke was not always about small steps (and so on). He was quite capable of going for dramatic moves, for example a single Bill abolishing all the “Engrossing and Forstalling” Statutes (i.e, the regulations on wholesale trade against speculation and so on) – which Burke managed to get though Parliament.
What concerned Burke was whether a change meant that people and private associations were more or less secure in the possession and civil use of their lives and goods.
Not whether the change was gradual or not.
Nuke Gray is a good person – and he has been misled (as have many people before him). Misled by people who wish to close down debate – by building in the assumption that change must be in a “progressive” direction with the only debate being whether it should be “radical” or “gradual”.
I tried to expose this deception some years ago – which is why I sell car parking tickets at an amusement park.
Wasn’t Edmund the burke warning that what was going on in France would lead to a military dictatorship? Was he right?
Nuke Gray!
Yes and yes.