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]
|
I have been rather puzzled that no one has written about events on Sark. And it has finally occurred to me that, rather than sitting about saying “why has no one written anything?”, I should write something myself.
Sark is an island (or technically a small group of islands) in the English Channel. It was part of the holdings of Duke William of Normandy (William the Bastard) and since his conquest of England in 1066 the fortunes of Sark and (what is now) the United Kingdom have been, in some ways, linked.
Although Elizabeth II is the head of state of Sark it is not part of the United Kingdom (people who are from Australia, New Zealand, Canada or some other places will not be surprised that one can have the same head of state without being part of the same country), but the government of the United Kingdom does stick its nose into the affairs of Sark in some ways.
For some administrative purposes Sark is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey (which is also not part of the United Kingdom). However, unlike Guernsey, Sark has not introduced such things as income tax. Guernsey introduced a nominal income tax at about the time of the First World War and then an income tax of 20% at the start of the Second World War – sadly never repealed.
Nor is Sark a democracy (as Guernsey is). The hereditory “Seigneaur” (the Channel Islanders origninally spoke Norman French after all) is assisted by a council of 40 land tenents (the “Chief Pleas”) which undertakes the duties of government. In the 1920’s 12 elected deputies were added to the Chief Pleas but (as far as I know) they have never sought absolute power for themselves (sorry, absolute power for “the people”).
Thus Sark has avoided democracy (and many of the “postitive” welfare rights that so many people now seem to believe must go with it). And is indeed known as one of the last strongholds of so called “feudalism” in the world.
Sark has had problems over the centuries (invasions by pirates, the occupation by the Germans in World War II and so on), but its most serious problem has turned out to be the coming of the Barclay twins.
These two brothers (who own, amongst other things, the Telegraph newspaper group) bought the tenancy of the island of Brechow some years ago. This is an island just off the coast of the island of Great Sark and part of the Sark group of islands.
Like all tenants the Barclay twins were required to swear loyalty to Elizabeth (their supreme feudal overlord) and to pay a 13th of the price they had paid for the tenancy to the Seigneur (their direct feudal overlord).
Sadly the Barclay twins have not been loyal to the Seigneur. Perhaps they feel justified in being disloyal because they have more money than him, or perhaps it is because they know that it is no longer a common practice to physically punish people who betray their lord.
The first sign of the disloyalty of the Barclay’s came when they appealed to international “human rights law” for the right to leave their tenancy to a female if they so choose. (Sark has had a female Seigneurs, such as the famous “Dame of Sark”, Sybyl Hathaway, who stood up to the Germans during World War II – but the laws on landholding do favour males.)
Now (last week) the Barclays have gone further. Again using international “human rights law” (with the help of the United Kingdom government) the Barclays have demanded that Sark introduce democracy.
Why should a libertarian care about any of this? Indeed why should not libertarians support the Barclays? After all the Barclays’ use the word “freedom” a lot and present themselves as proud individualists standing up to an oppressive government.
I admit that partly I just resent the end of old custom (the idea that a little place is governed by old traditions – a variation in a bland world), and I also happen to dislike the Barclays.
Leaving one country (to reduce your tax bill) is fine – but it is not fine (in my book) to then toss your weight about in your new country demanding that the ancient laws be changed and calling external powers (including the very United Kingdom government you moved to Sark to get away from the taxes of) to back you up.
But it is more than this.
No one has to stay on Sark. It may be “feudal” but there is no Serfdom there (as far as I know there has never been Serfdom on Sark) and the people do not want this new system of government (for all the patronising talk from the Barclarys about wanting good relations with the “common people” and desiring to educate them about modern political doctrines – “forcing them to be free”?).
Finally consider the off the cuff remarks of the Seigneur (Michael Beaumont) “nothing much is human rights compliant here” and “of course we will have to have a lot of civil servants now”.
I think this tells us what we need to know about a lot of modern conceptions of “human rights” and “democracy”.
Back in April, whilst delivering political leaflets is the pouring rain, I asked myself (not for the first time) “why do I do this?”
After all I do not hold some Conservative party policies in high regard – state pensions increases linked to the rise of average earnings, free higher education, bankrupt private pension funds bailed out with money found from “money forgotten about in banks” and so on.
Also I do not like some of the things that the leader of the Conservative party has been doing recently – getting rid of Conservative candidates because he does not like the (very mild) things they have said, or because they happen to have had their photograph taken where there were firearms (which did not belong to the candidate) also in the photograph.
Indeed Mr Howard recently got rid of a serving Conservative MP (Howard Flight) for saying he that he thought there was greater scope for savings in the government budget than the Conservative party was committed to (Mr Flight said nothing about “secret plans” and, as his remarks were recorded and published, Mr Howard knows he said nothing about “secret plans”).
So why was I getting soaked in the rain putting out leaflets? Well I quite like the people who are standing locally for the Conservative party (I would not like to see them upset – and they would be upset if they lost). But there is another factor – a bad conscience.
In 1989 (just as this year) there were County Council elections in Northamptonshire, and a person I knew and liked was in line to become the leader of Northamptonshire County Council.
Everybody told me that the lady was in a safe seat and that I need not concern myself with the campaign. And, besides I was off at university (anyway I was going to become a academic and was bored of my years of helping out with practical politics – if I had known what the future really held in store for me I would, if I had found the courage, taken my own life, but that is another story). So I contented myself with coming home for the day of the election and left it at that.
The lady lost by three votes and the Conservatives lost Northamptonshire Country Council by one seat.
The Labour party made much of the Conservatives losing Northamptonshire and it was one of the factors by which some Conservative MPs justified their attack on Mrs Thatcher in 1990 – an attack the Conservative party (and Britain in general) has never recovered from. I will never know whether Mrs Thatcher would have fallen anyway (wicked people can always find an excuse for their wickedness), but I did leave a local friend to lose.
So yes ordinary people “can make a difference”, I proved that by making a difference for the worse.
When first hearing of the film Serenity, people are most likely to say something like “it is made by Joss Whedon, the man who made Buffy the Vampire Slayer”.
This is true and the film does indeed have some touches that are in tune with this – for example a young women with unusual fighting ability, and characters who sometimes talk in a flippant way at very serious moments (although, of course, people sometimes do talk that way at very serious moments).
However, Serenity is rather different from “Buffy”. It is a serious science fiction film (yes there are such things) rather than a fantasy work (although I have nothing against fantasy works).
Serenity is based upon Joss Whedon’s short lived science fiction series “Firefly”.
It is about a group of people aboard a space ship named “Serenity” after the battle of Serenity Valley in which the Captain of the ship fought – on the losing side.
The ship is a borderline economic case, often in need of repair and the Captain undertakes jobs that are semi-legal or downright criminal.
The crew are a ragbag of people of different backgrounds and temperaments, brought together by a mixture of their own choices and force of circumstances.
In the film many of the questions raised in the series are resolved.
The film is also a good piece of work, well plotted, well acted and well filmed.
It does have some of the problems that plague so many Hollywood productions today – such as a tendency for people to say too much and too quickly (this may be hard for a British audience especially as many of the characters, unusually for an American film, speak with southern-western accents indeed more than accents, they use different words than people in the metropolitan areas of the English speaking world normally do now – although one of the experiments that Mr Whedon makes is to try and explore how ways of speech would change, and change back, over time).
However, what is interesting from a political standpoint is the basic story of the film.
The characters are lead, for a variety of reasons, in to a head on clash with the government – “The Alliance” its Parliament and those who serve it.
They are not fighting the government because it does not spend enough on welfare or education, or because it does not issue enough fiat money (indeed many people in the outer planets do not accept the government’s credit money, it has to pay in cash even some of the security forces who work for it), nor are they fighting the government because it is a selfish or corrupt dictatorship.
No, in the end, the characters are fighting the government because it wishes to create a better, more civilized world (or rather worlds) and because it is prepared to violate the nonaggression principle in order to achieve this objective.
Of course the film is not “realistic” all the time (even if one accepts the existence of technology that we do not have yet and people who hate science fiction will not do that – although there is less “high tech” stuff in this film than in most science fiction films). Some of the characters, sometimes, win fights that they most likely would not win.
However the basic feel of the film is realistic and good people die. The “baddies” have noble motives, and some of the “goodies” are far from saints.
The characters do not destroy “The Alliance” but they try and do what they can, and the film shows they are right to try.
Joss Whedon is sometimes considered a baddie because he does not like President Bush, and I certainly doubt whether he would call himself a libertarian (although there are not many reasons why a libertarian should like President Bush), but Mr Whedon could call himself a Maoist for all I care – he has still made a libertarian film.
And every libertarian (and non-libertarian for that matter) would be well advised to go and see Serenity.
Yesterday I went up to Blackpool for a couple of off-conference meetings.
In one of these meetings (a joint meeting – debate with John Redwood) Mr Richards of the ‘Independent’ newspaper spoke.
Mr Richards stated that everyone should forget about the EU because the Euro was not going to be introduced into Britain and the Constitution had been voted down.
Various people (such as a member of the European Parliament who was at the meeting) carefully explained to Mr Richards that EU was taking more power (in all area’s of people’s lives) all the time and that even the voted down Constitution was in fact being implemented a bit at a time (for example the EU Defence College is being set up even though its legal basis, the EU Constitution, was not enacted).
Mr Richards simply repeated what he had already said.
So more specific examples of the growth in the activities of the EU, all of which the European Court, committed as it is to “ever closer union”, claims, possibly quite correctly, are allowed by the existing treaties. The growth in power is in all areas of life and is going on all the time, specific example after specific example were all explained to Mr Richards.
And Mr Richards simply repeated what he had already said, plus stating that it was “dangerous” not to vote for someone to be leader of the Conservative party on the grounds that they did not oppose the EU taking these powers unto itself. The Conservatives “would not win the election” if we thought like this (as if winning an election to what was becoming a powerless Parliament would interest anyone apart from the most corrupt).
The only other thing (on this area) that Mr Richards said was to mumble about the needs of “enlargement” of the EU – even though nothing that had been said to him, by anyone, had anything to do with the EU having more members than it used to.
What was depressing was not that (as some might think) that Mr Richards was a dishonest crony working for his master Mr Clarke (who sits on the board of the ‘Independent’). No, I suspect Mr Richards honestly meant every word he said. It was a matter of his being unable to understand what was being said to him.
Now not everyone who spoke to Mr Richards was on top form or used the exact words they should have done (for example, I was not on good form at all) – but most people did well enough. However, it was clear that argument and evidence simply could not reach him.
Now Mr Richards is an intelligent and well educated man, and so if argument and evidence can not reach him, what about the rest of the population? And remember, Mr Richards was exposed to evidence and logical argument for quite some time at the meeting (most people are not exposed to such things, in matters of public affairs, for very long at all).
Reasoning (not just on the EU – on every matter) depends on evidence and logical argument (in some subjects, perhaps, just on logic).
If most people (even the intelligent and well educated) can not be reached by evidence and logic then libertarians (and other people who try and use reasoning in public affairs) are wasting their time.
Perhaps most people really are at the level of being little above dogs or cats – “I like him, he has got a big belly and a nice voice”.
Few here have a deep faith in democracy so they may say “so what, we knew that anyway”, but if most people really are at this mental level it undermines rather more than democracy.
On a train from Manchester to Nottingham I was sitting at a table when I was joined (in Sheffield) by two academics from the University of Nottingham.
The two gentlemen talked (rather loudly) about the internal affairs of their department (which seemed to be a ‘social policy’ department, at least the term ‘social policy’ was used) and their nice trips to various European nations and to Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
What struck me was the total lack of interest in ideas that the academics showed – they both boasted of using the same talk again and again, and neither cared whether their talks represented the truth or made any contribution to knowledge.
I only spoke once. One of the academics was boasting of his trip to the “biggest city in New Zealand”, but could not remember the name of the place – so I told him it was called Auckland. But later he seemed to be under the impression that he was talking about the capital of New Zealand – so he may have meant Wellington.
For the rest of the time I just sat there in the hope that some sign of interest in ideas would be shown by either man, but it was not.
I remembered Professor R. of the Politics Department of the University of Nottingham. Professor R. had always been interested in ideas – although I can not say that I had always agreed with him.
Once at a conference in London I had expressed the fear that local councils would use the introduction of the Community Charge (the “Poll Tax”) as an opportunity to increase spending – and blame the bill on the new system (my own position was that a local sales tax would be the least bad option – as people could at least vote with their feet and shop in the cheapest areas thus, perhaps, forcing down the level of the tax).
Professor R. had replied that I was too cynical and that most politicians met well, they were just guided by mistake ideas. As my own view was that most politicians (and many other groups of people) were scum, our difference of opinion became quite sharp. Perhaps my anger was due to Professor R. reminding me of my father – a man who was betrayed so many times and yet maintained a strange (at least strange to me) faith in human beings.
Some years later (after some “modernization” of academic life) Professor R. killed himself.
As I have said he was man who was interested in ideas and valued them, but perhaps he had too much faith in human beings (just as, perhaps, I have too little faith in people).
I miss people like Professor R., they thought that other people were like themselves (and they are not), but the world would be a better place if they were correct and people (especially academics) were really honest and dedicated seekers after truth.
Still what would have I had heard had the two academics had been interested in ideas? The latest plan to reform the Welfare State – yet another pattern for the deckchairs on the Titanic?
Or (if the academics had been economists) the claim that the best way to promote prosperity was to “reduce interest rates and stimulate demand”.
I have even heard libertarians talking as if investment did not have to based on real savings ( fiat money and credit bubbles performing this function instead), and as if prosperity was based on consumption (rather than on work to produce goods and services of value to human beings). The madness of the boom bust cycle being presented as what “all serious economists” believe (as a columnist in the “Times” newspaper put it – referring to his idea that Germany’s economic situation could be improved by issuing more money “stimulating demand”).
What is worse? People who are not interested in ideas, or works of political philosophy, economics (and other subjects) that are filled with absurd nonsense and seeing this nonsense repeated in so many places, from leading universities to television and the newspapers?
On BBC Radio 4’s “Today” Programme it was announced that Karl Marx was the greatest philosopher of all time and a leading Marxist historian was invited on to the show to explain the ideas of my near namesake. This was not an example of bias – simply a result of people e-mailing the BBC in response to the “In Our Time” Programme asking this question.
Of course, people who listened to BBC Radio 4’s “In Our Time” programme (or any other BBC show) would not have heard a sustained attack on Karl Marx in recent years. And today (July 14) shows this point – on the “In Our Time” programme the presenter (who is a supporter of the Labour party but, by the standards of the BBC, is actually rather fair minded) asked if any of the experts on the show thought that there was a connection between the ideas of Karl Marx and events in Russia, China…
None of three academic “experts” thought that there was. Karl Marx was, in fact, a great supporter of freedom.
A glance at say The Communist Manifesto (1848) would show that Marx favoured (even in the early stages of the revolution) the confiscation of the property of anyone who tried to flee the new regime, and that he also favoured the creation of industrial and agricultural “armies”.
For a man who was normally careful to say he could not describe what the future society would be like, this is quite revealing.
Marx believed in “freedom of speech” for himself – not for anyone else (this is quite clear, both from his doctrines and his life). The academics were simply following the tradition of Plato – that of the “noble lie”.
Is it any wonder that people who were educated by such academics would have a favourable view of Marx?
But we must move on.
On the 1pm. BBC television news we were told that although the bomb in Baghdad had killed 30 children it was really targeted against the Americans (after all one American had died), and that the bomb in September that also killed about 30 children had also really been targeted against the Americans.
So that is OK then, if one supports killing Americans.
Except, of course, it does not make sense. If a bomber waits till a crowd of children has gathered (to get sweets or for any other purpose) and then sets off his bomb, then the target is THE CHILDREN.
By the 1700 Radio Four “PM” programme, things had got truly bizarre.
A “leading astrologer” was interviewed to examine the theory that the evil Americans had altered our destiny by shooting a space probe at a comet.
Most of the questions were respectful (rather than ironic), and the astrologer said that he did not know, but seemed most concerned at the “arrogant” action of the Americans, which might have pushed us into a “parallel universe”.
So we went from Marxism to Islamic fundamentalism, to barking mad mysticism – all in one day.
It would not be true to say that the BBC will support “anything” that has “death to America” at its heart (for example it would not support a return to a strong Monarchy that demanded that the colonists return to loyalty to the Crown), but it will certainly support a lot of rather different anti-American ideological positions.
I remind readers that unlike the “Guardian” or the “New York Times”, people are forced to pay for the BBC – via their television “licence fee”.
The first choice to be faced when making a Batman film (or any other superhero film) is to whether it should be played for laughs or played straight. This Batman film tries to play it straight and I think that is the right choice. It is harder to play a superhero film straight but that is the spirit in which the stories were written and enjoyed.
Critics will not tend to like a straight superhero film (for example they hated the Bruce Willis film Unbreakable, which I would argue is a very fine film indeed), but it is the way to go, and the Spiderman films showed that critics and public can accept it (sometimes). The character of Batman is less difficult to present in one way, in that he is a superhero with no superpowers.
So one is left (in the comics) with a man of great inherited wealth, who is man of practical invention, physical action and great public spirit. Well John Walton (who died a few days ago) was a man of great inherited wealth who choose to join the army and served (as a medic) with U.S. Army Special Forces in Vietnam, he was also an inventor (no sneering about how he died in an aircraft he built himself – his stuff was good quality), and a man who administered the Walton family charitable activities. Of course John Walton did not go out and fight crime, in the big city, in an armoured suit shaped to scare the criminals (for a start he did not like big cities), but the rest of his life story shows that the Bruce Wayne character idea is certainly not “unbelievable”
Batman Begins decides that all of the above is too much for one man and so has Mr Wayne helped by a scientist in his company – but again that is hardly an absurd position. Where the film does stain belief is that Mr Wayne owns his company and in these days of inheritance tax and capital gains tax, having a man inherit control and keep it even after a determined effort to “take the company public” (i.e. hand over ownership to the pension funds and other financial institutions) by the hired manager… that strains belief. → Continue reading: Pondering Batman Begins
Hopefully my title has alerted readers to what “George IV” I am thinking of.
George IV has got a bad press. He is thought of as a fat, drunken fool. Who was so deluded that he thought he fought at the battle of Waterloo.
His father (George III) has had his reputation defended by it being pointed out that his metal problems had a physical cause (a blood disorder made worse by arsenic poisoning from the power in his wigs and the very medical treatments he was given). Whilst in control of his body and mind, it is now accepted, that George III was a hard working and learned man who was deeply concerned by cases of individual injustice – for example a poor clock maker might be cheated of the longitude prize by all the politicians and administrators, but when George III got to hear of the case he would not rest till justice had been done.
On the other hand George IV is seen as a man whose problems were self inflected. A man unwilling to resist temptation – whether it was for women, food or booze. A man disloyal to his father (for example keen to be Regent years before his father had his final breakdown and even willing to have his father locked up for life), of hopelessly unsound political judgement (for example his connection with Charles James Fox, a politician who supported the French Revolution and never showed the understanding of either security or finance needed to be fit for high office).
And whereas George III was learned (with a great library of well used books, knowledgeable on all the main subjects of his day), George IV is presented as shallow minded and lazy – whose knowledge of even those subjects that interested him (such as architecture) was superficial.
The last point first:
George IV may indeed have had less knowledge of art and architecture than George III had. And George IV’s favoured architect (John Nash) may indeed have big gaps in his education.
However, have a look at Windsor Castle, or the Brighton Pavilion, or the area of Regents Park in London. Neither George VI nor John Nash may have had the book learning of George III – but they did not do so bad a job.
On women, food and booze: George IV had the faults that many European aristocrats (and other rich people) had in this period. That George III did not have these faults is to his credit – but it should not be used as a stick to bash his son over the head with.
Also on booze, water was unsafe to drink in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (although not as unsafe as it would be when cholera stuck Britian in the 1830’s) so becoming what we see as a drunk was quite common – even the great Pitt the Younger (the supposedly straight laced rival of the degenerate Charles James Fox) died of booze.
A man may say some very stupid things when he is drunk – even waxing on about the fighting at Waterloo – but then again people interested in military history (or military affairs in general) often see themselves at certain battles and talk in this way.
I would not like to be thought mad because I have talked of battles (as if I had been there) that occurred hundreds of miles from me, or indeed centuries ago – we armchair generals may be bores, but we are not mad. → Continue reading: In defence of George IV: King of the United Kingdom
To strengthen defence, cut taxes and balance the budget is very difficult.
Ronald Reagan managed the first two tasks, but failed in the third. President Bush made no effort to control nondefence spending in his first term and is only now trying to do so – we shall see how how well he does (he does not have President Reagan’s defence of the Democrats being in control of the House of Representatives)
However, it is not impossible to achieve all three tasks. Perhaps the most important example in history is that of the Emperor Anastasius.
When Anastasius became Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire in 491 AD (the Senate allowed the choice of Emperor to rest with the Empress Ariadne) the Western Roman Empire had already collapsed. Here and there (such as in the Province of Britian) there were local leaders who continued to fight against the Germanic peoples, but the vast majority of the old empire in the west was under various Germanic kings.
The Eastern Roman Empire (which evolved into what we call the Byzantine Empire) was not in a good state. As with the Western Empire taxes were crushing, and yet the treasury was empty and the defences of the Empire were falling apart.
Anastasius fought many wars, both against invaders and against domestic rebels (mostly Chalcedonian Christians who objected to his austere Monophysite variety of Christianity – although I am not claiming that all Monophysites were austere, and it should also be remembered that Anastasius did not tend to persecute other sorts of Christians – not even Arians, the religion of the most of the barbarian rulers in the West and a religion whose doctrines were further from the “one divine nature of Christ-God” of the Monophysites, than were the “two natures of Jesus” view of the Chalcedonians from which the vast majority of modern Christians get their doctrines), and yet he greatly reduced taxes. Anastasius abolished the “chrysargyon” (a major tax on the urban population) and reduced the “capitatio” – one of the great taxes on the peasantry. → Continue reading: The Emperor Anastasius and the city of Philadelphia
Back in 1958 J. K. Galbraith’s The Affluent Society was published. The main thesis of this book was that the reason that goverment services were no good was that not enough money was spent on them, hence there was “private affluence and public squalor”.
The thesis was clearly false even when it was first published, as government spending on such things as education was at an all time record high in 1958 – both in the United States and in all other nations.
However, since 1958 the thesis has been shown to be utter nonsense. As government spending on such things as education has exploded in the United States (and in many other nations) and the standards of such things as government education have declined.
Of course one can attack the above as resting on empiricism, and I would accept that economics should not be based on empiricism (I accept the “Austrian School” view that economics is based on the logic of human action). However, J.K. Galbraith always claimed to be a supporter of empiricism – and so as the years went by (with rising government spending and falling standards in the “public services”) he should have admitted that his theory is false and he has never admitted that his theory is false.
Now J.K. Galbraith seems to have changed his name and come to live in London. In an article in thursday’s “Evening Standard” Simon Jenkins claimed that the reason that “public services” were no good in London was because not enough money was spent on them.
Simon Jenkins (previously known for his support of the London “dome” and other money wasting absurdities), thus ignored both the logical arguments against government spending and the experience of the last several decades of rising government spending and falling standards.
Instead Jenkins declared that everyone should believe him because “I am no socialist” and because he was willing to pay more money to local government himself.
Of course nothing stops this man giving government (local or national) more money now, if he wishes to do this he can – but what has that got to do with other people being forced to give government more money?
As for “I am no socialist” – well “so what?” How is this an argument? Even J.K. Galbraith came out with better stuff than this (perhaps, if they are the same man, age is taking its toll – after all I believe that Galbraith was born in 1908).
The article also made other odd claims. For example there was a claim that the government headed by Mr Blair had not increased taxes – which it has, including taxes on wealthy people (Simon Jenkins was very keen that taxes on the wealthy be increased – he seemed to be unaware that very high taxes on high earners reduce revenue over time).
The article also claimed that a “Nordic” system of collecting income taxes on a national level and then dishing it out to local governments would improve “local democracy”.
This is odd on two levels. Firstly because this is rather like what already happens in Britain – income tax is set by the national government, but much local government spending is paid for by grants from national government (there is endless argument about how fair these grants are, for example with claims that Conservative party controlled councils are discriminated against by the Labour party government, but such arguments need not concern us here).
Secondly, is it not odd to think that the above helps “local democracy”? Surely if one believed in “local democracy” the income tax should be set by local councils? Of course taxpayers (apart from Simon Jenkins) would tend to leave high government spending areas over time – and such councils would go bankrupt, but this would at least be “democratic”.
The tax eaters of London would get to democratically drive out the taxpayers (both individuals and companies) if that is what they wished to do (and the voting stats were on their side), and they would get to democratically starve.
However, central government dishing out subsidies is hardly a matter of ‘local democracy’.
After his oath to protect the Constitution of the United States President Bush made a speech in which he said he wished people in other nations to be free in their own way.
I hope he meant this, as the examples of the broad American way of freedom that President Bush gave in his speech were ‘the Homestead Act’, the ‘Social Security Act’ and ‘the G.I. Bill of rights’.
The Social Security Act (a government pyramid scheme) speaks for itself. As does free education for ex-servicemen (to call this the ‘GI Bill of Rights’ was an insult to the real Bill of Rights – rights as limits on government power, not excuses for it).
As for the Homestead Act – well this (in 1862 I believe) was an effort by President Lincoln to copy some of the ideas of Jefferson (as expressed in the North West Ordinance) of breaking up land into small farms. In the West it was a terrible mistake – as much of the land was not (and is not) environmentally suitable for farming (as opposed to the big ranches that would have naturally envolved). ‘Water mining’ and soil damage (remember the dust bowl of the 1930’s) were the result of the Homestead Act.
The Social Security Act at least was unconstitutional (or the Tenth Amendment does not mean a thing – and there is no need to list the powers of the fed government in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution – as the “General Welfare” has been declared a power rather than what is actually the case, that “the common defence and general welfare” being the purpose of the powers).
In short, like most recent Presidents, Mr Bush does not have a clue about the document he swore to defend.
Oh well Presidents do not write their own speeches, and at least there was no plan to go to war with Lower Slobovia to make sure they have got a Social Security Act.
Even if we take only two nations, the United States and the United Kingdom, this question is complex.
If we take the old John Dewey definition of liberty (at least the definition of liberty that John Dewey tended to use in his youth – as he got older he became a more interesting man), the answer is ‘right now’. Never before have average incomes been higher, most people can buy more things (and so on) than people could in the past.
However, for those of us who reject the Pragmatist soft-left FDR ‘freedom from want’ definition of liberty or freedom (no, I am not going to go into possible differences between ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’) more thinking is required.
First the United States.
Slavery may be against natural law (if there is such a thing) as even the Romans accepted (although slavery was not against ‘the law of all nations’ or Roman law itself), and it may be (as authorities for centuries have claimed – for an American example see Salmon P. Chase) against the principles of the English Common Law, but it certainly was not against the statute law of many States.
So if we define (as libertarians do) liberty as the non-violation of a person or their goods by another person or group of persons (‘the nonaggression principle’) then the United States was more of a free country after the slaves were freed than before. So the United States after 1865 (not in the first years of the Republic) is at its most free.
Government taxes and regulations actually decline after the Civil War (or War between the States, or War of Northern Aggression – or whatever you want to call it), and statism does not seem to rise again till after the Interstate Commerce Commission of 1887 (it is pity that a good free market man like Grover Cleveland was responsible for that – but he thought of himself as using federal regulation to ward off worse regulation by individual States, a rather Madison style move that did not work out well in the end).
Oddly enough the Jim Crow laws in the South were not fully underway by the mid 1880’s either (although they were on the cards – it depends which State one is talking about). So the early 1880’s would seem (for all their faults) were about the peak of liberty for the nation as a whole. The trade tax (or ‘tariff’ if you prefer) was increased in 1890 and ‘antitrust’ came in the same year, and Jim Crow got worse and worse. → Continue reading: When was liberty at its peak?
|
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.
|
