Also the ideas of private property (in the full sense – secure possession and civil use) WORKED.

They produced astonishing results in Japan and other places – just as they had in Europe and North America.

It is just so tragic that it all may pass away.

Replaced by the “morality” of the hunter-gatherer pack – Social Justice.

Take the new Egyption Constitution (or the old one – come to that).

The opposition denounce it for not having “economic and social rights” but actually it is full of the terrible things.

Free this – regulated that.

All in it – and the “liberal” opposition say the Islamists are not statist ENOUGH.

This sort of thinking we drag us all back into the slime.

Unless, somehow, large places can break with – really break with it.

Then the achievements of people in such places might (again) astonish the world.

And perhaps more than one world – for there is a universe to be won.

But I’m also interested in a wider context. It seems to me that the predominant political ideas throughout the world began to spread during 18th century (with, as Paul pointed out, roots that go back much further). Fukayama’s idea, more or less. Did western liberal-democratic ideas (using the term very broadly) spread only because they were popular in the hegemonic powers of the 19th and 20th century? Or did they spread at least partly because of the value of the ideas themselves? If the former, then for liberty to gain momentum we might have to wait for a new hegemon, which could be a very long wait. But if the latter is an important factor, then perhaps the ideals of liberty can spread behind the scenes and eventually have some influence.

If Samizdata has a purpose other than just the enjoyment of intelligent conversation, surely that’s part of it.

Of course there is no such ENITY as society – but when people try and explain that they get smeared as “atomistic individualists” (as Mrs Thatcher got smeared). Many people believe (or pretend to believe) that the only kind of order is what the Greeks called “taxis” (centrally planned order) and the order that emerges via the web of voluntary interactions (“cosmos” – hat tip to Hayek) is something they can understand (or at least pretend not to understand).

Ironically it is actually the people who argue that everything must be planned and enforced are the real deniers of the existance of CIVIL society.

Tedd…..

We do not need everyone to agree with us.

But we do need a majority in given geographical space – and one large enough to be defendable (sorry but a little Galt’s Gulch somewhere will not do).

I am not one of nature’s democrats – but most people are, most people (even people who believe in smaller government) believe that if they are outvoted that gives the majority the “right” to take their property and order them about (Rousseau and co seem to have done a good job of brainwashing on this point).

So we need an area of population where most people (not all people – just most people) are in favour of FUNDEMENTAL freedoms (freedom to keep and bear and arms, freedom of speech…) and believe that there should be a limit on taxes and government SPENDING.

Texas is the largest such place.

The most able (or least unable) to stand outside the collectivist “international community” and so on.

Of course it is NOT the lowest tax place – it is number 45 of the States, which means there are five better States.

But it is the lowest taxed BIG State (ditoo government SPENDING), and it is the least regulated BIG State also.

I would love the United States (as a whole) to be saveable.

I really would.

The United States has, generally, been a great force for good (or rather against evil) in the world.

It is just that I do not think the United States is savable.

I wish it was – but I do not think it is.

Most people in Texas are certainly NOT libertarians (far from it) – but they do what a somewhat smaller government. Whatever they say (to judge by deeds – not just words) that is NOT true on a United States level.

Hence my thinking above. Texas may be savable (MAY be – perhaps). The United States? I do not believe so.

It’s not the word “British” I’d take issue with, it’s the word “society”. There’s no such thing.

Okay, fair enough. I’ve made the same argument myself many times. Substitute whatever term suits you better — culture, zeitgeist, prevailing attitude, majority opinion, whatever. The issue remains: If broad support for political liberty no longer comes from the places (and, no, I do not mean just geographical places) it once came from, what next?

The concept of the corporate man has been used to justify untold evils. “Society” is of course composed of individuals. If for example those individuals were able to go down the street and legally buy weed they would by definition be more free since they were not forced to act according to the will of an outside agency. And yet by preventing many men from acting according to their own conscience, we are told “Society” becomes more free.

By making all of the individuals which compose this imaginary compound being less free, we are supposed to believe the whole becomes more free.

There’s an idea even more horrible and blasphemous than Hobbes leviathan by a long shot.

I agree completely with your last comment. But it’s also true that, at least in some contemporary liberal circles, there’s a renewed interest in virtue. Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s “Norms of Liberty,” for example, spends quite a bit of time on the subject. There is an important (if small) sub-set of liberals (using the contemporary American meaning of the word) who are beginning to recognize that left-liberalism and progressivism are flawed, and are looking for something closer to classical liberalism.

I also note, with some satisfaction, that all those you named as sources or defenders of liberty were British or American, while all those you named that worked against it were not.

But, at some point, I’d like to return the discussion to my original question: Since we seem to be in agreement that British and U.S. society no longer enjoy majority support for political liberty, what happens now?

(By the way, is it even legitimate to use the expression “British society?” Ever since the name United Kingdom was adopted I’ve been confused about the use of the term “British.” Does it have a use anymore?)

I agree with all the Founders (even Jefferson) that liberty can ONLY flourish if the traditional virtues are maintained – in modern language if people are “conservative”.

Why do you think the left (the Fabians, the Progressives and so on) spend so much time and energy (and have for more than a century) trying to undermine those virtues? To make objects of ridicule and contempt?

The Frankfurt School (Herbert Marcuse and so on) were actually late commers to the idea that the way to undermine (and destroy) economic liberty (what they call “capitalism”) is to make people despise work – make them regard paid labour as “slavery”, make them hate their own employers and…….

After all Rousseau (and others) were doing that in the 1700s.

And Rousseau and co were not exactly exactly liked by John Adams and co.

For example, when someone tells you that United States Consitution is a charter for the power of “Plutocrats” they are saying that Benjamin Franklin and so on were “Plutocrats”.

And OF COURSE such “down with the plutocrats” types also denounce tradtional ideas of the (Aristotelian) virtues and traditional ideas of religion (a BEING called God – human BEINGS created with the God given ability to understand the difference between good and evil, and to choose good).

Of course atheists can be pro liberty (pro civil society – pro the private property rights non aggression principle) – for example the Randian Objectivists show this.

However, the Randian Objectivists are actually MORE committed to tradtional virtues (the Aristotelian virtues) than many religious people are.

They are actually MORE conservative than many religious people..

No surprise that Randian Objectivists have been involved in the Tea Party movement from the start.

That does not seem like well rooted pro freedom traditions to me.

That’s more or less my point. With neither British nor American culture strongly supportive of freedom anymore, what next?

Will the ideas rally? At first I thought that might be the eventual outcome of the Tea Party movement, and perhaps it yet will. But I’m doubtful that a movement closely tied to conservatism can get the job done. Political freedom is an essentially liberal idea. Perhaps Perry is right (if I’m interpreting him correctly) that progressivism has to follow its course to its inevitable demise, the way communism did, before any real change can occur. Then perhaps there will be room for true liberalism to return.

I generally avoid speculating about future outcomes, but I’m interesting in other people’s ideas.

On how rooted pro freedom ideas are in the population…….

Yes you have a point Tedd.

But pro freedom ideas are certainly well rooted in British people any more.

And how well rooted are they in Americans?

The rise of state education (other than in Mass – mostly a late 19th century thing) had some nasty long term effects.

Franklin Roosevelt wiped his backside on the Consitution of the United States – and the people reelected him by 60%

That does not seem like well rooted pro freedom traditions to me.

Still I hope that the populations of some States show some pro freedom backbone – and show it soon.

For time is running out.