Ahistorical blogertarian
Do you think that the demands for ID cards in particular, and ‘statism’ in general are the product of the totalitarian instincts of ‘socialist’ politicians
In which case you are an ahistorical bloggertarian or
the dynamic between representative democracy (regardless of the political colouring at any given moment) and budget-maximising bureaucrats
In which case you are not. Now Paulie's explanation for the increase in the size of the state is this:
I have argued that – as the franchise expanded, and the demands that the state placed upon individuals increased the expectations individuals had of the state (wars, mass production, growing political de-alignment) that ‘the state’ increased in size to meet those demands. That’s Weber. That’s the Public Choice Theory cannon.
Seems very plausible, but not many budget-maximising bureaucrats in that are there? Franchise expanded and it gave a say to a whole lot of new voters that had never had it before. They voted for the politicians that wanted to give them what they wanted (normally some flavour of socialism). These politician implemented the policies that they had promised and believed would lead to a better country. The state was then expanded to deliver these policies.
Much more to do with a politicians with a different form of ideology gaining power to implement policies that they believed in than with a slow grind of budget-maximising bureaucrats ratchetting up the size of the state.
It also fits with the data from the 19th century. Then there where far fewer voters, and because of the franchise rules even fewer of those that where interested in socialist policies. In the 19th century there where ample opportunities for budget-maximising bureaucrats to find ways of increasing their domains and budgets. It could have been even easier than in the 20th because as there where fewer voters so the taxes suggested could be more easily tailored to affect them as little as possible. Perhaps via consumption taxes, which would affect the rich who could vote less than the poor that couldn't. Maybe via tariffs which help inefficient local capitalists, who could vote, and hurt consumers, who often couldn't. However this did not happen because there was no political will for an expansion the state.
Though if you look at the definition of a Libertarian being historical or ahistorical does not actually come into it at all. Nor does Paulie's jibe about the Longrider and myself being anti-democratic. Here are a selection of the definitions of Libertarianism:
Libertarianism is a political philosophy or a family of related political philosophies based on very strong support for individual liberty.
- Wikipedia
or
an ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech
- princeton wordnet
or
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from a necessitarian).
-Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
or
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
- American Heritage Dictionary
Libertarians want liberty, not necessarily democracy. As the Pedant General in Ordinary said in the comments to my previous post on the subject:
democracy IS NOT THE GOAL. LIBERTY is the goal. Democracy delivers liberty better than all the other forms of government that have been tried from time to time, but it stops being better than anything else at precisely the point that democracy becomes seen as the end point.
Democracy is the best system of governance yet discovered, but the tyranny of the majority is no less a tyranny.
- The majority might not like certain kinds of consensual sex, but they should not be able to dictate the way people love.
- The majority might not like people with different body characteristics, but it should not be able to remove peoples liberties because of how they where born.
- The majority might not like people of a certain 'class', but it should not oppress them because of this.
- The majority may at times not like certain religious practices (and I for one don't like any of the mainstream religions), but if nobody is harmed then they should not be suppressed.
posted by chris at 12/10/2007 08:16:00 pm
11 Comments:
Surely it would make sense to advocate the optimal balance between liberty and democracy? Traditionally, Conservatives have advocated representative democracy rather than a capital-C constitutional settlement. Liberties have been safeguarded by a principled defence of them by elected representatives who have to personally answer for that balance.
This is - I think - the genuinely interesting question here. All of this nonsense about 'socialism' diverts us from the real present danger: Politicians are becoming more firmly mandated and subject to a greater degree of political centralisation than ever before. Consequently, they are less personally answerable to the electors, and less disposed to behave liberally.
The Home Secretary that delivered more of the kind of liberties that you listed in your latter set of bullet points (divorce, gay rights, abortion, etc) understood this implicitly.
Oh, he was a social democrat by the way.
Paulie
Are you saying you want 'a framework of constitutional liberties' or not? Or are you just wanting a cosy discussion as to how we all politely set a nicely agreed balance?
I wouldn't disagree that 'Politicians are becoming more firmly mandated and subject to a greater degree of political centralisation than ever before. Consequently, they are less personally answerable to the electors, and less disposed to behave liberally' and that is precisely why I would love to have had a formal framework.
Problem is it's too late, being effectively a 'Catch 22', as from past performance I wouldn't trust any of them one whit in either setting an 'optimal balance between liberty and democracy' or drawing up a formal Bill of Rights
At least, having got rid of us, the Americans had the right idea about trying to stop those like us getting in the driving seat again. As is everything else, it's imperfect, but their Constitution generally ends up backing individual's liberties against State intervention. But the idea that our politicians, having passed in the last decade some of the most authoritarian legislation on record, would sit down here and now and, starting from scratch, write in even some of its basic premises is probably pie in the sky.
A final thought. If you think that our current lot deliver on each of the 4 sets of liberties set out, I doubt that, respectively, 'Backlash', some special need kids' parents, shooting sportsmen and Christians, to take a few examples, would agree with you.
Anon,
Good points. I'd agree that our settlement is becoming less liberal, and that this is not a good thing. I'd return to my previous points about this not being significantly effected by the party of government at the moment. I think that the way that the tensions between media / parliament / core executive / wider bureaucracy - and, in particular the increasing bureaucracy-by-contract mean that the Conservative Party (had it won in 1997) would have left us in a similar position. OK. Fox hunting would probably be legal, but I doubt that if positions were reversed, that there'd be a significant difference on detention periods or ID cards. Tory home secretaries were, mostly, no more liberal than recent ones.
I would say that our options are:
1. Continue as we are doing, accepting that an imperfect and increasingly 'responsive' political centre will allow pressure groups and the media to set the agenda.
2. Reassert the values of representative democracy, cabinet government, the primacy of Parliament and the importance of strong local government as it has historically delivered the most optimal balance between democratic collective action and individual liberties.
3. Draft a set of 'liberal' red-lines that democracy can't encroach upon and codify them into a constitution.
Your conclusion appears to be 'it's too late for option 2 and we have to go for option 3, but - hang on - that's not likely to work very satisfactorily either as there isn't an acceptable roadmap that we can use to find our ideal constitution.
We are agreed that things are getting worse and that something has to give. But - call me an optimist - I think that the fragmentation of the media and lower barriers to entry into the 'pressure group' market may make option two less of a non-starter than you think.
Finally, while I'm no keener than most people are on curbs on specific liberties, I still think that the most over-valued liberty is the one that every beggar currently enjoys: The right to eat Caviar.
Surely it would make sense to advocate the optimal balance between liberty and democracy?
I would always place Liberty above Democracy. Democracy is a tool, Liberty is a goal. Democracy helps to make sure that those with power remember that they are our servants and not our masters, but it liberty is an end in itself.
Traditionally, Conservatives have advocated representative democracy rather than a capital-C constitutional settlement.
I wouldn't describe myself as conservative, or a pure libertarian for that matter, I normally go with liberal (sometimes prefixed with either Manchester or Classical). The old system worked so long as everybody took the concept of the unwritten constitution seriously. Thanks to the constitutional wreaking and lack of accountability since 1997 that is becoming less and less of an option. Pandora's box has been opened and I have yet to see any hope emerge.
A proper constitution would be a good thing now. Enshrine liberties such as Habeas, Free Speech, free movement, free thought, the presumption of innocence, no punishment without trial etc. We could use it to sort out the massively overpowerful office of Prime Minister, increase ministerial accountability, get rid or at least limit Quangos. With that done we could remove the final powers from the Monarchy. We probably shouldn't specify a voting system in it but it would make a good time to shift away from FPTP, I'd prefer STV. Certainly not a Party List system, party lists are even worse than FPTP.
I certainly wouldn't trust this current lot to do it though. On every one of those things (apart from the Monarchy) have got a lot worse over the last 10 years. Even the stupid party now looks liberal compared to Labour.
The Home Secretary that delivered more of the kind of liberties
You mean Roy "I'm in the wrong party" Jenkins? Other than the Prevention of Terrorism Act and supporting the EEC/EU one of the best prime ministers we never had. Made up for the social bit by being very very liberal.
Chris,
We appear to have both hit 'publish' at almost the same moment.
Why is 'liberty' a goal? Liberty from what? Hunger? Warfare? Familial / religious / cultural cruelty?
I would say that having a happy, prosperous, fulfilled, and reasonably predictable life would be a goal for most of us. The ability to assert our liberties and a reasonable expectation of control over our lives through democracy would appear to be the tools in that scenario.
"Thanks to the constitutional wreaking and lack of accountability since 1997 that is becoming less and less of an option."
Are you referring to devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland, London and Wales as 'constitutional wrecking?'
I think that you are suffering from an availability bias here. In the 1980s, Mrs Thatcher did more to centralise the British constitution (such as one has ever existed) than anyone before or since.
She made a big noise about shrinking the size of the state as well but didn't do so. She also signed the Single European Act (but I admire that about her). It didn't all start in 1997.
I refer you to my previous comments on this one.
One of the ways to stop pressure groups and the media to set the agenda with their calls on the government to 'do something' is to point out how bad the state is at anything that it does. If more people realised that the state isn't that good at doing something there would be less calls for it to do something. Sometimes referred to as Negativism.
Then without the state throwing its sledgehammer policies around there would be more space for local solutions to emerge.
Maybe wreaking was too strong a word, but there has been considerable damage such as: yet more sacrifices of British sovereignty into the wheels of engrenage, signing the final EU treaty in 6 days (final because it is self amending), The Civil Contingencies Act, the Regulatory Reform Act, the haft baked reforms of the House of Lords, changes to the voting system that would disgrace a banana republic, devolution without thinking about the West Lothian question, the massive erosion of Habeas, internment, putting less value on British citizens liberty than that of foreigners, the ID Cards Act, Contact Point, the DNA Database, and the various criminal justice acts along with the current criminal justice and immigration bill.
Thatcher's era was bad for centralisation and the politicisation of the civil service (plus some really stupid laws, like banning the teaching of most of Shakespeare's sonnets), but both of these have continued unabated. On the other hand at least it had some good to show for it, by getting government out of trying (and failing) to run businesses, tried to promote free trade, and encouraged markets. Economic liberty is an important one as well.
Paulie said
'Why is 'liberty' a goal? Liberty from what?'
Having been in the Soviet Union in the early '80s and watched people queuing up, with their internal travel documentation, just to travel in their own country, seen their paranoic distrust of their fellows and their bureaucratic officialdom, I doubt if they didn't see 'liberty' as something to be aimed for
Here, would you settle for 'maintaining liberty'?
Looking over the last 25 years though, when I think about what has and is about to happen to our own travel arrangements, why I would avoid some parts of our Social Care system like the plague, would never go near the police if at all avoidable, and find myself having to take care with whom I voice which opinions for fear that they might have joined the popular culture of translating reasonable comment into personal offense and then to offence, I'm not convinced that we haven't already gone past the 'maintaining' stage.
And apologies if I'm jumping in what could otherwise appear to be a private conversation....:)
Not at all anon, feel at liberty to join in.
The liberty from (or positive liberty), that is a liberty that you are provided with by the benevolence of somebody else, isn't my prefered type. I think that liberty to (or negative liberty) is more fundimental, but that is a subject that is so big it would require a post or two in its own right.
Thanks Chris
I used to feel 'free to'
Now I just want to be 'free from'
I'm sure you can work out the rest.
Paulie,
"I would say that having a happy, prosperous, fulfilled, and reasonably predictable life would be a goal for most of us."
1. The state cannot, should not and MUST not dictate to anyone what their private goals should be.
2. The state does not, cannot and historically has not been anywhere near being in the running to help deliver on any of the goals listed.
"The ability to assert our liberties and a reasonable expectation of control over our lives through democracy would appear to be the tools in that scenario. "
I would say having the liberty within in the rule of law to act in the manner you feel would be most appropriate to achieving your own goals would be a much more effective way for each of us to get towards our own goal than "through democracy".
As outlined above, democracy is an inefficient means - at best - to deliver goals decided on by somebody else. I'd prefer liberty thank you very much.
"Liberty from what? Hunger? "
Who is forced to provide the food to satisfy this claim right? Why?
Do you think democracy will be able to tell me what I want to eat?
Paulie, the reason that democracy is not the goal is that illiberal democracy exists and it's not a very nice place.
Post a Comment
<< Home