Preston Byrne, who will be known to some Samizdata contributors, has this fascinating and lengthy comparison about the state of freedom in the US and UK. He comes to the conclusion that according to a range of metrics, the UK isn’t a free nation any longer.
The United States – while free – is never very far away from turning into something similar. The difference in attitude between my two homes (and two passports) is about a heckuva lot more than gun control: it is a misunderstanding about what rights are and how they should work. Modern Europeans don’t seem to notice or even particularly care about state overreach.
“Gun violence is a problem for the government,” says the man on the Clapham omnibus, “so guns should be banned, just as we banned them in England.” He goes on to point out that England wants to ban, or has banned, encryption, extreme viewpoints, democratically-elected foreign political parties, Donald Trump, knives, or whatever other Public Enemy Number One du jour happens to be in vogue, irrespective of whether the evidence supports or requires the proposed legislative action.
Rights, in the mind of the Englishman and in his laws (thanks to sub-section (2) of most Articles of the European Convention), are and shall always be conditional.
On the flip side, Europe can, and does, use policy to achieve social welfare gains far out of proportion to their cost. It is unquestionably better to be a small-time drug dealer (or a member of his family or circle of extended friends) when said dealer finds himself before an English court than if he found himself before one in New York County.
I, too, have noticed this evolution in England for some time. My disappointment has been immense. As a young American I placed England and things English on a very high pedestal. My father and I often joke that had we been present in the colonies in 1776, we would likely have been loyalists (and thus “on the wrong side of history” as our President is fond of saying). Of course it is not England’s fault that I esteemed it so highly, but still.
Of course property rights are far weaker in the USA. One of the causes of the US War of Independence was people having their property seized after being convicted of sedition against the Crown… iniquitous but at least you actually had to be convicted… in the USA today you do not even have to be charged with a crime, let alone convicted of once, to have your property seized… it can be seized on suspicion of having committed a crime these days.
Everywhere is fucked up it its own special way.
Try living in Russia, Tovarishch! Learn what freedom is all about at the end of all things.
The essential difference between the American and European visions of good government is that while America aspires to the least amount of governance that can ensure liberty, Europe aspires to the greatest amount of liberty that is consistent with governance – which is to say, none.
This is still true, but it has to be said that many in America have adopted the European vision.
What? I do not believe this at all and do not agree with blanket bans. Indeed I would like to see the Bill of Rights, 1689, implemented not stifled, which gives me the right to bear arms. We have had too many freedoms, including speech curtailed. I do not accept this and will speak out against it. There is no right to not be offended.
A small relief for property rights in the USA, (or some might say it is neutral), a court in San Francisco, CA has held that the chap who got a ‘selfie’ of a ‘monkey’ is the owner of the picture rights, not the beast.
OK, it was a macaque and PETA throwing their weight and money around, purporting to represent a beast.
And all parliaments since 1689 ought to have functioned as limited by 1689 and legally unable to change any part of that settlement. The only Parliaments legally competent to change things being one summoned, of course, by the legitimate successor to James II and VII on the relevant franchises for the relevant constituencies.
I’m wondering whether the “right wing” party in the USA has introduced – and boasted about introducing – retrospective tax legislation yet. No ? Still got a little way to catch up with the UK then.
Thanks for the link.
There will be many people here who have been able to make a comparison of the UK and the US more recently than i could. All what i can say is, what Preston Byrne complains about look like trivialities to me. The reason i felt less free in the UK than in North America, is housing: apart from Manhattan, the Bay Area, and a few other hot spots, one never has to worry about housing when considering a move within North America. The same cannot be said for the UK. That has little to do with politics and a lot to do with wide open spaces, of course.
Having said that, there have been some very worrying developments in both the US and the UK since i left. First amendment or not, i would not feel free to speak my mind in the US today. Children in British schools have been arrested for hate speech, and children in American schools have been suspended (or arrested?) for mimicking a gun with their hands. Were i to move back to the US, i’d be wary of any physical contact with the opposite sex (or the same sex, for that matter) for fear of being accused of rape, and considered guilty until proven innocent — if that is even possible.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the curtailing of freedom of exit in the US. Speaking of which, is anybody here willing to acknowledge the freedom of exit that the EU has brought to UK citizens? I am not speaking of the freedom to move to other EU countries, but of the freedom to bring money out of the country: up to the early 1980s (iirc) ordinary British folks could only bring a few hundred pounds out of the country on a trip abroad.
Bookmarked, as the promise of ten such areas of freedoms being covered in detail is a tempting cookie.
Perry, I think property is a mixed bag — there is a whole literature on “legislative taking” where yanks have greater freedom to enjoy their own real property as they see fit, and the recent tendency for police and towns to seize real and personal property on the basis of suspicion (or to seize assets to such an extent that ability to get counsel is hindered) is beginning to see pushback.
If some attention-seeking US prosecutor of the order of Trump, Arpaio, or Schneiderman decides that his ticket to populist success is to start noticing the affronts to freedom perpetrated by his colleagues and law enforcement, then between Amendments 4 and 5 and laws such as 18 USC 241 and 242, he would have a lot to work with in making an example of unsympathetic police-officers and giving them severe sentences as a warning to others.
While I am not particularly fond of Lord Halifax (The Dead One) I came across this in his memoir.
“I used to have many arguments with American friends as to whether their system or ours had the larger infusion of democracy … I used to assert that democracy would always need a strong infusion of political courage, if it was to be preserved from declension into a parody of itself.”
On both sides of the pond we long ago reached the parody stage and are now living in the land beyond parody.
Enjoy
“That has little to do with politics and a lot to do with wide open spaces, of course.”
Not so clear. In “Manhattan, the Bay Area, and …” the free market in housing is rendered considerably less free by government interference of various sorts, from rent control to government ownership of empty land to excessive zoning restrictions. And in the UK, there is an entire towering edifice of government restrictions competing to slow down new housing even while other government agencies are wondering out loud why there isn’t more building going on.
Unfortunately, England has fallen hook, line and sinker for the lie that government is able to solve or problems. This is often reflected in the way the news is worded: “A law has been passed to prevent X” rather than “in an attempt to prevent or reduce X”
The US seems to be heading that way too sadly. That’s state education for you. There’s a huge struggle for the zeitgest in the US at the moment and sadly, I think individual liberty is on the ropes (though some progress is made occasionally)
PdeH Tolstoy
These two similar , but different, (families) collections of cultures have each developed distinctions in the aspirations (H/T PfP) of their peoples as the compositions of those peoples have changed.
Where there is freedom and individuality these two are so in very much the same ways.
Where there are constraints and collectivist strictures the observation of PdeH Tolstoy applies.
The civility observed as an adult in England as far back as 1945 seems now to have largely reflected the obligations that individuals recognized (accepted and performed) to one another, which began to change with summer invasions from the Gulf States in the late 70s and may now be widely replaced by intermediary functions of what has become UK “government” in both the delineation and modes of performance of those obligations.
Due to a current splenetic disposition, space available does not allow for a similar discourse on what has occurred in the U S; But, read the blogs (not the papers).
You can speak your mind in the US without being arrested. You just can’t speak your mind and keep your job.
Yes Perry – and it was (shamefully) “conservative” judges who gutted the protection of the Bill of Rights against asset theft (which is what it is) – part of the war-on-crime madness.
States vary – but the Federal government is out of control.
As for the philosophical attitude towards freedom.
Ordinary people (in both countries) have a lot of different opinions – for example I know a lot of ordinary British people who support freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms.
However, it is certainly true that the British elite believe that restrictions on government are “nonsense on stilts” (Jeremy Bentham) and policy should be determined by utility calculations.
Who makes the calculations? Government “experts” of course – with elections essentially being an illusion. The “liberal” elite would make all real decisions.
For example see the horror at the elected government in Poland trying to decide who the judges are and who the heads of state broadcasting are.
Elections are largely for entertainment purposes (according to the “liberals”) all such decisions should be undertaken by the “experts” (i.e. the “liberals”).
Very Economist magazine.
But the United States?
I fear that many of the American elite have very similar opinions – to them “rights” are just nice goods and services to be provided by government.
It is not that they are “uneducated” – they are very “educated”.
That is the problem.
I think the only real difference is that large numbers of Americans (ordinary ones) are still aware the Bill of Rights exists and wish to see it restored.
I doubt this is a majority of Americans – but it is certainly many millions of Americans.
Therefore when I consider the United States I am tortured by HOPE.
I know there is little hope – at least pre collapse, but there is some hope and so I am tortured by it.
Whereas I can consider the United Kingdom calmly.
Because I have no hope at all about here.
Against my better judgement I am going to correct some of Snorri’s points. Although I suspect the real problem is one of language. So I am not implying that Snorri has actually got something wrong – simply that things might be better explained with different words.
The E.U. had nothing to do with freedom of exit from the United Kingdom.
I think you mean exchange controls (money rather people) – but the last exchange controls were got rid of by Mrs Thatcher’s government, nothing to do with the E.U. (or EEC as it was at the time).
.
In the U.S. – the idea is that you have to renounce citizenship if you do not want to pay Federal taxes anyone (even if living overseas).
I agree that this is a terrible thing.
As for the E.U.
A series of Welfare States heading for economic and cultural bankruptcy – and with a Credit Bubble financial system.
Very much the same as the United Kingdom and the United States.
Although religion is weaker in most of the E.U. (and the U.K.) than it is in parts of the United States.
Only parts of the United States.
I agree with Glenn Beck that the areas of America that have lost faith (or rather – put their faith in government) will be nightmares. As big government fails they will have nothing (nothing at all) in terms of independent organised cooperation to go fall back on.
As will be much (although not all) of the E.U. – also nightmares (and terrible conflict with the forces of Islam also)
I still hope that something good will emerge from it all.
I do not believe that technology will be lost – as it was (to some extent) with the fall of Rome.
But the social and economic conditions will be bad for a period.
Not many years – at least I hope not.
I have said before that people who are young (not old farts like me) will see the rebirth of Civil Society.
Let us hope so.
According to US law, you are liable for US income taxes for ten years after renouncing your citizenship. And that’s in addition to a one-time 40% tax on all your US assets.
If I’m not mistaken, *civil* asset forfeiture (along with, but separate from, criminal) arises out of common law – specifically *English common law* which is the legal path we’ve followed on.
“In the UK asset forfeiture proceedings are initiated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These fall into various types.
. . .
Secondly, there are cash forfeiture proceedings, which take place (in England and Wales) in the Magistrates Court with a right of appeal to the Crown Court, having been brought by either the police or Customs. Thirdly, there are civil recovery proceedings that are brought by the National Crime Agency “NCA”. Neither cash forfeiture proceedings nor proceedings for a civil recovery order require a prior criminal conviction.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture
To P M who writes:
To what do you think young people aspire that will lead to a Civil Society?
By what evidence do you sense such aspiration.
That is not to challenge your view, but to understand its basis.
Young people will see the rebirth of civil society.
Very, very young I would have thought.
Moses had to keep the chosen people in the wilderness for forty years before all the wrong thinkers died off. Sounds about right.
Sir,
As far as I know, there is, and never has been, in the English Common Law, a writ tor claim o such effect. I believe that you are mistaken, and what has happened is that UK Statute law, which is not Common Law – judicial precedent of ‘finding the law’ -, has copied what has been done in the USA, again by statute. You may be conflating a Common Law system with the existence of a Common Law claim.
I await the Sage of Kettering chiming in with a reminder of Dr Bonham’s case, a reminder that the Common Law would actually declare such statutes void as repugnant to reason.
The US may indeed have begun with the importation of English common law, but unfortunately it seems to have been Blackstone’s version of it, not Coke’s. If we ever accepted Bonham’s Case as controlling precedent here we have long abandoned it (as, indeed, has England). Clearly our Constitution adopted Blackstone’s approach (viz “the supreme law of the land” per Article VI).
Quite so Eric – a vile law, repugnant to natural justice.
And the correct answer to someone such as Jeremy Bentham (who claims that natural justice does not exist – that everything is just a matter of utility) is to ignore him (if peaceful) and to hang him (if he tries to use violence to put theory into practice).
Mr Ed is also correct – the idea that asset theft is some ancient Common Law thing is not correct. “RICO” and the all the rest of it was in fact a revolt against Common Law principles. Although I do not doubt that they SAY it is all in line with Common Law principles – these evil university folk will say anything. It is, in fact, a revolt against the old principles.
A revolt justified by an appeal to the Blackstone Heresy (yes I know that Enoch Powell fell into this madness as well – I wrote a post on the matter over at Counting Cats) – the doctrine of Sir William Blackstone that the legislature could do anything it likes.
A doctrine that negates the Old Whigs – who looked to Chief Justice Sir John Holt (of 1688 and all that) and, yes, Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke.
And before them to such people as the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker and all the way back to Cicero – see “On Duties” (or “On Obligations”).
Victorians made Blackstone, and even Thomas Hobbes, popular – and our time is the victim of this debased “liberalism” (a “liberalism” that looks to the Mills. Bentham, David Hume and even Thomas Hobbes). If you want to see the result of their ideas – look around you.
As for democracy…..
I am not a supporter of the “Divine Right of the 51%” – however, the present state of affairs is certainly NOT democracy.
The Mills were in favour of everyone having the vote – most certainly. But only if elections did not really matter (only if enlightened experts made the real decisions – via a professional Civil Service and judges and so on).
Of course they did NOT say that elections were to be deceptions or just there for entertainment purposes – but this is basically what they really wanted. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh – but only a bit. They certainly took some steps down this road. As for now….
Take the example of California.
The people get to vote – directly.
But if the “liberal” elite do not like what the people vote for – it does not get done.
The people voted against government Gay Marriage – but there is government Gay Marriage.
The people voted against “public services” and government benefits for illegal immigrants – but these things continue.
“Liberal” judges urinated on the will of the people (as they always do).
The judges were not elected – and what words of the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of California did they site?
Nothing relevant to the specific matters at hand – basically the judges just made-stuff-up.
Looking for a Sir Edward Coke or Sir John Holt among modern judges is not going to work – the judges now have a very different belief system.
A belief system they call “liberalism” – an ideology that is not the same as that of the Bill of Rights.
Indeed it is radically OPPOSED to the principles of the Bill of Rights.
And it is not recent – after all Jeremy Bentham, with his 13 Departments of State covering most aspects of life, and his contempt for limits on government power (contempt for Natural Justice) as “nonsense on stilts” was two centuries ago.
If the Mills (with their hostility to big private land owners and for capitalist factory owners – see J.S. Mills worker coop ideas and so on) are “liberals”, and Bentham is a “liberal” and David “Euthanasia of the Constitution” Hume is a “liberal”, and even Thomas Tyranny Hobbes is a “liberal” (who do you think pushed his writings – yes the Mills and the rest of the Westminster Review crowd) is a “liberal” then how are California judges NOT liberals?
After all they say they are liberals – and they seem to have a lot in common with lots of the “famous names”.
For example talking about “freedom” and “liberty” a lot (indeed endlessly) – whilst twisting these words so that they lose their Old Whig meanings.
Well, I’ll admit that my understanding of the details of CL are sketchy and I may (probably am) wrong.
However – you all *do* have civil asset forfeiture since the 2002 PCA. You do have the *slim* protection in that its not the local police agencies and their staff unilaterally making the seizure decision, but its a slim protection indeed.
As Paul Marks probably expected, i am going to put some pressure on him.
Yes, i did mean exchange controls, only the rights words did not come to mind.
I think it obvious that exchange controls limit freedom of exit.
It is correct that the Thatcher government got rid of exchange controls, but any government, except the most fanatically europhobic and xenophobic, would have done the same, because they were under obligation to do so under EU law. As evidence, i submit the fact that Italy, governed by the socialist Craxi at the time if i am not mistaken, got rid of exchange controls at about the same time.
I also remember reading, only a few years ago, that Thatcher was actually opposed to abolishing exchange controls. Presumably the Chancellor convinced her that it was the sensible thing to do.
As for this (still from Paul Marks):
Apparently Paul did not notice that “the doctrine of Sir William Blackstone that the legislature could do anything it likes” is the inescapable consequence of DENYING the is/ought dichotomy.
NB: i do not claim that it is a _logical_ consequence of denying the is/ought dichotomy: only that, in the real world, it is inescapable.
For completeness i also reply to Eric:
That’s pretty much correct afaik.
… and to enoriverbend:
Agreed; but still, it is a suspicious coincidence that the housing market is most strangled by local government in those places lacking wide open spaces. It seems likely (at least to me) that, where wide open spaces are available, local governments see no point in introducing rent control or zoning restrictions.
Snorri,
Exchange controls were in place in France as late as 1986 under Mitterand, I recall then explaining to two German Inter-Railers in St Malo why they could not exchange French Francs for Deutschmarks. The EEC as it then was had no particular concern over individual nations imposing controls but they might have wanted an economic ’emergency’ as some pretext. In 1987 Kinnock’s plans to reintroduce exchange controls should he win the General Election within hours by Order-in-Council (parent of the PotUS Executive Order) were leaked, resulting in a spike of donations for the Conservatives.
Capital controls are now in force in the EU in many ways, including a law requiring declaration of export of currency to the value of €10,000 or more.
No Snorri – the end of exchange controls may be “required by E.U. law” (oddly forgotten in Cyprus and so on) but it had nothing much to do with Mrs Thathcher’s decision. There were indeed many things that YES were done in Britain because of EEC – EU “law”. See the works of Christopher Booker for these things. They are not good things.
RRS – what beliefs of the young will lead to the return of Civil Society and the defeat of the “liberal” elite who have made about half of the population totally dependent on government?
None.
What will destroy the present system is (as Mr Ed is fond of pointing out) economic and social bankruptcy – de facto if not legal.
“But why would that lead to the return of a private property and voluntary cooperation society?”
It many not – there your (RRS) point about beliefs does indeed matter.
Better to be a place like Provo Utah (not Salt Lake City) rather than New York or L.A.
People who worship government (who see government as the rightful source of all good things – and react to every failure by demanding new political leaders, never by questioning statism itself) are not likely to react to a breakdown by changing their beliefs (although some may) – they are more likely to kill-and-eat other people.
However, such savages (if I am still allowed to use the word “savages” – I must stress I do NOT mean it in a racial way) will be defeated by civilised people.
Not because civilised people are better fighters – but because they will organise (out of necessity) and will have better technology and economic activity to product the military technology.
Presently many of “the rich” and “big business” have a hostile relationship with conservative churches – as “the rich” and “big business” try to appeal to young radicals from the universities.
However, eventually more of “the rich” and “big business” will have a revelation.
No matter how much they try and make friends with the left (“hey we are so hip and with-it……Gay Rights! Abortion! Only Black Lives Matter! Social Justice!”) the radicals (young and not so young) still want to plunder and KILL them (although, as yet, the words “eat the rich” are still a slogan rather than a concrete plan).
Eventually even “the rich” and “big business” will come to understand that all the efforts to make friends with the left do not work – that the radicals still want to KILL them.
The left have a nightmare……
That “the rich” and “big business” will make an alliance with conservative Churches – such as the LDS (the Mormons) of Utah, and the “Southern” (actually they are nationwide) Baptists, and the Conservative part (rather than the Social Justice part) of the Roman Catholic Church – and so on.
The much attacked brothers Koch (Charles and David) have already, de facto, done this. Whilst still proclaiming their support for “Gay Rights” and so on – they have quietly allied with very conservative religious elements in Kansas.
They have allied because the alternative was DEFEAT (for example in the election for Governor of Kansas in 2014).
As the stakes get higher (the lives of “the rich” – not just their business operations) such de facto alliances will become more common – at least in certain areas.
The logic of “these people want to kill us and these other people do not want to kill us – therefore we should ally with the latter group against the former group” will become rather powerful.
The leftist nightmare – “big business and the rich” allying with “reactionary religious elements” (people who worship God – rather than “Social Justice”) is my hope.
After all (as an Old Whig) I REJECT the idea that “the rich” and “the poor” have opposed long term economic interests.
On the contrary – I think that the policies followed in, for example, South Dakota are for the long term interests of BOTH rich and poor.
The natural harmony of long term economic interests was one principle that the better sort of 19th century liberals kept.
This an Ayn Rand following atheist and a devout Southern Baptist can agree on.
And this is what the left (the education system, the media and so on) passionately oppose.
According to the left – the collective should own the land (not just “Agenda 21” – but an old “liberal” demand going back into the 19th century) and the interests of rich “capitalists” are opposed to “the workers” (J.S. Mill – not just Karl Marx).
Eventually property owners (big or small) are going to wake up and smell the coffee.
The efforts to appease the left (for example by giving them lots of campaign funding) are not going to work.
The left want you dead.
Of course there were many strands to 19th century liberalism.
Liberals around my home town (Kettering, Northamptonshire) were “in to” state education, setting up a local council, land nationalisation and prohibition.
They also use the words “freedom” and “liberty” a lot (indeed endlessly) – but they clearly meant something fundamentally different by these words than an Old Whig means by these words.
However, someone like Gladstone had a rather different understanding of “liberalism” – and President Grover Cleveland was a free market pro private property liberal (in the United States the word “liberal” was not taken over by the socialists till the 1920s).
But what “liberal” works are modern students given?
Well Mr J.S. Mill set the tone.
He declared that Jeremy (13 Departments of State and so on) Bentham (who he and his father, James Mill, were followers of) was the main “liberal” voice (he also presented a demented drug abusing poet as the main “conservative” voice – but conservatives replied that Mr John Stuart Mill had no right to decide who was their main spokesman).
If this denial of Natural Justice (of the old principles of the Common Law) and endless demands for more statism, is what “liberalism” means – then it has no charm for me.
No matter how many times they use the words “freedom” and “liberty”.
Indeed their twisting of the meaning of these words is rather annoying.
“But Paul – many of the left are from rich families, and are rich themselves”.
In the end it will make no difference – the logic of their doctrines will lead them to eat their own parents. And George Soros and co will find that the people they fund are only too happy to kill them.
It is the logic of the (FALSE) doctrine that “the rich” and “the poor” have opposed long term economic interests.
The logic of “Social Justice” does not stop with plundering – its logical end point is cannibalism.
Hence the slogan “eat the rich”.
After all it can not be “evil” – as Natural Justice does not exist (Mr Bentham “proved” this) and even if Natural Justice (Natural Law) does exist Mr Hobbes and Mr Hume “proved” that we can not choose to do what is morally right against our passions, and reason is (and “ought to be”) nothing more than the “slave of the passions”. That “whore” reason, Martin Luther, is not relevant – and all our actions are predetermined anyway. So go off and rape “women are either wives or whores”, and (of course) kill-the-Jews who are rich “exploiters” anyway – Paul Johnson points out that the rantings of Karl Marx (ignoring the origins of his family) against the Capitalists are often taken word-for-word from Mr Luther’s writings against the Jews.
No objective moral right and wrong, if it feels good (as in feels pleasant) DO IT – not that you have any real choice not to do it anyway (as people can not resist their dark desires – and “ought” not to, reason “ought” to be the “slave of the passions”).
I rather doubt that a stable and technologically advanced society can be maintained on a foundation of these doctrines.
People, if they wish to survive in an advanced civilisation, are going to have to turn to opponents of all this.
To Ralph Cudworth and John Locke – rather than Thomas Hobbes.
To Thomas Reid – rather than David Hume.
To James McCosh – rather than J.S. Mill.
And so on.
The logical end point of the presently fashionable doctrines (moral relativism and determinism) is National Socialism (or some other form of totalitarianism). Most certainly it is NOT what Mr Hume (or even Mr Hobbes) actually wanted – but it is where their doctrines naturally lead. And totalitarianism does not work – not in the long term.
What is the law?
The law is whatever the state says it is – that is the “modern” position.
The “freedom not to be free” – the end of the terrible burden of moral choice and individual moral responsibility. As the young student said in 1933 – “now we are free – we are free not to be free”. No more terrible struggle and pain to resist our darkest desires.
We can not help what we do (no individual moral responsibility) – and if it feels nice then do it (for example – rape).
The end of the terrible struggle between good and evil that every person suffers every day of their lives.
But an end by giving in to evil.
You see? you admit it yourself: the “modern” position is that there is NO is/ought dichotomy. A position that you, Paul, share with Hobbes, Spinoza, Hegel, and Marx.
(I could make a pun about Marks and Marx sharing the same meta-ethics but … well, i made it.)
P M & Snorri:
“What is **Social**? – What Does It Mean” (Chapter 17 “Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics” by F. A. Hayek; Routledge 1967 &1978)
“The Mirage of Social Justice” (Vol. 2 of “Law, Legislation & Liberty” by F.A. Hayek [Routledge 1976 & 1982])
— A — “LAW” is derived from perceptions of (and understandings) of existing ORDER. We observe certain order in the physical world and come to concepts such as “gravity.” That does not mean the concepts, and thus the Laws, are unfalsifiable “truths.” In our age, “gravity” is under examination.
There seems to be persistent thinking that the relationship of ORDER to LAW is such (giving social force to the means for implementation of Law) that social force can and should be used to generate particular forms of social order – “The Force of Law” (pace, Laird). The failures to discriminate between the forces of extant order that generate Law, and “social,” political or military force to generate particular order, underlie much of the difficulties in discussions about LAW.
@P M:
MY query:
To be clear, you said only that the young would “see,” not that they would actively “revive,” Civil Society.
Whilst the concept of Civil Society as a format of relationships of *individuals* in a social order, which would encompass the elements (private property and voluntary cooperation) you cite, differs from social orders of collectively determined relationships (family, clan, tribe, oligarchies, etc.), that concept’s revival would seem to turn on **aspirations** (hope), rather than beliefs (faith), a point dealt with by John Paul II in the role of Hope in reaching Faith
(RRS is not RC).
So, what do and will the “Young” **aspire** to that may offset the oppressive forms of oligarchy possibly to ensue; material pleasures and comforts, experiences, meaning in the lives of others . . . ? Are there any clues in the “political” (or even in the “social’) choices of the “young?”
How about we call Europe- Ewe-rup, the land of the sheeple?
Snorri – I know that English is not your first language, and I wish I could speak Dutch as well as you can speak and write English (alas – I am utterly ignorant of other languages).
But I thought it was obvious (after all I have said it several thousand times) that I HATE the “modern” position – and I do not regard it as really modern, it is just an ancient evil.
In fact several ancient evils (determinism, legal and moral positivism, and so on) – mixed together.
As for Thomas Hobbes – well I suppose the reason M.J. Oakeshott liked him was because Thomas Hobbes was not a socialist.
That was not exactly a distinguishing feature in the 17th century when there were few socialists (although there was some) – but in the 20th century (when Oakeshott was writing) most “intellectuals” were socialists (of one sort or another).
So coming upon a thinker who stressed that the state should keep-the-peace (rather than control the means of production, distribution and exchange) must have been wonderful for Oakeshott.
The downside to Hobbes that was so obvious to 17th and 18th century Whigs (who rightly detested Thomas Hobbes) – was not denied by Oakeshott, he just does not seem to have written much about it.
Oakeshott I can forgive, due to the circumstances he found himself in.
The people who should not be forgiven are the 19th century “liberals” who had no excuse at all for praising Thomas Hobbes – and yet pushed his work anyway.
Legal “scholars” such as Maitland, “liberals” such as the Westminster Review crowd (the Mills and other Benthamite degenerates).
They deserve no forgiveness at all.
RRS – either the young will support the restoration of Civil Society, or they will starve (or collapse into cannibalism).
“Then they will starve”.
Perhaps in some places – but there are still wide areas of the United States where the old limited government beliefs are not dead.
It is my belief that these areas will survive – and expand.
Even if the rest of the country (and the Western world) falls into chaos.
Sometimes the good people are atheists (such as the Randian Objectivists) – sometimes they are religious such as the Mormons, Southern Baptists and the conservative faction of the Roman Catholics.
How do I define “good people”?
Those who do not wish to rob others – including take their land.
I fully understand that this means I would not define the great “liberals” Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill as “good” – which might shock Hayek, but there we good.
Do I agree with Hayek that the concept of “Social Justice” is meaningless?
No – not quite, I regard it as easy to understand but (also) as incredibly evil.
“Social Justice” is the doctrine that all income and wealth (including the land itself) belongs to the collective (“the people”) and should be “distributed” by wise rulers.
Even Thomas Hobbes seems to have accepted this doctrine – at least in regards to land, where his view is basically Islamic (the state should decide who gets what land – and who keeps what land) something the late M.J. Oakeshott seems to have overlooked.
By the way – before I leave this thread….
Where did the Jeremy Bentham – Samuel Taylor Coleridge “choice” come from? The choice between the statist “liberal” and the demented (away with the elves and pixies) “conservative”.
It came from J.S. Mill.
When I want to University College London (for a year) the leading Prof there handed me an essay by J.S. Mill offering the alternatives of “the liberal” and “the conservative”.
Who did he offer as “the liberal”?
Jeremy Bentham – the 13 Departments of State covering aspect of ordinary life person (who regarded such things as the Bill of Rights as “nonsense on stilts”).
And “the conservative”?
Samuel Coleridge Taylor – the drug addict Romantic poet who was an ardent Protectionist.
So this is the “choice” Mr John Stuart Mill offers us.
Statism or……. statism.
Whilst, at the same time, using the words “freedom” and “liberty” endlessly (just like modern “liberals” do).
Mr Mill objected to people turning their back on him (over Mrs Taylor) as “parading their disapproval” .
I would not have done that – sexual matters are none of my business. Besides my own thoughts are a mass of evil.
But someone screaming “freedom” and “liberty” when he is pushing statism is irritating.
Very irritating indeed.
By the way Hayek does not spot this in Mill’s writings at first – and blames the later stuff on Mrs Taylor.
Actually it is there from the start.
The habit of modern universities of presenting Mill as the alternative to Marx is demented.
Well actually it is not demented – it is dishonest.
Paul: apparently, you did not detect my sarcasm.
Apart from the sarcasm, however, i was pressing a simple point, or, if you prefer, a few closely related simple points:
that Hobbes, Spinoza, Hegel, and Marx implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the is/ought dichotomy;
that the normative parts of their philosophies, being based on a sort of naturalistic ethics, become untenable once we accept the is/ought dichotomy;
that to say that the law is (or rather: OUGHT to be) whatever the State says it IS, is to deny the is/ought dichotomy;
and therefore that, if you reject the is/ought dichotomy, then you are objectively on the side of Hobbes, Spinoza, Blackstone, Hegel, and Marx.
BTW, English is the language which i use to think, so please don’t make allowances for my English language skills, because the implication is that my thinking is faulty!
My apologies Snorri – no I have little sense of sarcasm or irony (so it is my own language skills that are fault.
Hobbes and Spinoza were determinists (let us leave aside the “compatbilism” thing was just a lie) – so, properly speaking, they did not believe that morality (i.e. moral choice – personal responsibility) exits.
Hegel and Marx believed that all things (including moral principles) depended on “society” the “historical stage” of “society”. Much as Warren Hastings was alleged (by Edmund Burke – Hastings denied the charge) to have held that different moral principles (not details – principles) applied to India – because it was at a different-stage-of-development.
In short Hegel and Marx IF this charge was true in their case, were vermin.
Sir William Blackstone is a quite different case.
Formally he supported the universal (in time and space) principles of natural justice – but he also (at the same time) held that Parliament could pass any law it liked and that it should be obeyed.
These two principles are clearly in contradiction – but Sir William did not seem to see this.
So he was a muddlehead – but he was still a gentleman (he must assumed to be honourable).
Hobbes, Spinoza, Hegel and Karl Marx were clearly not honourable – indeed they rejected one or both of the two basic principles.
That universal moral right and moral evil exist – and that humans can (with effort) choose to do what is morally right against our desire to do evil.
As Hobbes, Spinoza, Hegel and Karl Marx rejected this no further consideration of them is sensible.
They are enemies and that is all. The only question in relation to them, should their wickedness stop being theory and start to be practice, is “lead or steel?”.
Paul: a pleasant surprise to learn that you read my comment from 5 days ago, but you have not even begun to address the issue i raised; specifically, that if you are against Hume’s meta-ethics, then you are objectively on the side of Hobbes, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx; and Blackstone for good measure.
Not that it affects my point above, but let me list a few other ways in which Hume differed from Hobbes, other than the meta-ethics.
* Hobbes was a materialist; Hume rejected the notion that one can know the nature of reality.
* Hobbes was a theist (though of an eccentric kind); Hume thought that “God exists” and “God does not exist” are propositions that are neither true nor false, but simply nonsensical.
* Hobbes thought that human nature is selfish; Hume thought that human nature is altruistic — though he also wrote:
But note the qualification: what for Hobbes was the truth about human nature, for Hume was only a working assumption.
* Hobbes was an absolutist; Hume was a constitutionalist — indeed some scholars think him a major inspiration for the US Founding Fathers.