Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery — hay and a barn for human cattle.
-- P.J. O'Rourke
I frequently read calls for a bill of rights in the UK and I'm not entirely sure that where I stand on this will come across as supporting the rights of the individual. My take on rights is that codified, explicit rights come across as a gift of the state, and a tool for the state to manipulate us further. If we look at the Human Rights Act, how often do we see it being abused wilfully to justify giving rights to people who no longer deserve them? How often is it used in such a way as to denigrate the rights of the many to the benefit of the few?
In my take on Libertarianism, there should be simple, natural laws that reflect the supremacy of the individual and anything which is not explicitly illegal would be, by definition, legal. This is how it is supposed to be in the UK, but there are now so many new laws that it's practically impossible to get out of bed without breaking at least three laws. This is not how things should be, especially not if ignorance of the law is no defence. I defy even the most highly qualified lawyer to get through a month of normal legal practice without copious reference to legal esoterica.
Just the official guide to income tax has doubled in size since 1997, which means twice as many ways to get caught out, but also twice as many grey areas open to interpretation and protracted legal argument.
This complexity and voluminous red tape only benefits large organisations, whether it be the government itself, Tescos, Shell, or other massive businesses. They are the only organisations large enough to afford the large numbers of people who can collectively understand it all and manage it all.
So, codified and explicit bills of rights look to me like opportunities for more bad laws, especially as they are likely to be couched in the most mellifluous of legal terms, leaving bags of room for interpretation.
As a Libertarian, therefore, I would hope that a future Libertarian government would repeal more regulation than it would enact and that it would lead to simpler legal interactions in future. I would support much tougher punishment for crimes against individuals and much more lenient punishment for crimes against the state. Indeed, I'd hope to make the state so feeble that people would not feel inclined to kick the dog when it's down.
And it goes without saying that I don't believe that people have a "right" to education or housing or food -- I believe that people have a responsibility to get their children and themselves educated, housed and fed and that the state should do nothing to help them, nor more crucially, should it do anything to hinder them.
8 comments:
There you go again.
The way 'it' is now is bad. Everyone climbs up on stage beside you - so far we are all converts and ready to vote you in as our next PM.
Then you move on to - carve up the Law Books - well, we are still generally with you, after all, it was only a few years ago that we survived quite happily without the mountain of laws from the EU, so simply chucking them on the fire seems a reasonably doable objective - You are still in line for the slimmed down version of our new PM.
Then after lifetimes of a society where the government has decided for us how a major part of our lives is going to be played - you simply intend to scrap it and with a magic wand, suddenly we are all equal and all responsible for everything the government has managed for us. You might still have us with you if you gave even a smidgen of thought as to how this transition is to work without causing the most horrendous problems for a major part of society.
But no, suddenly, Obnoxio is back to playing the Clown, we all laugh and clap and go back to more same old same old.
To bring good ideas out of the Circus ring you have to show the public how it will happen. Magic, wishes and imagination only works in the Big Top. When you wash off the grease paint and step back into the real world, then you have to start to deal with real solutions and not just pipe dreams, and you have to be able to explain just how those solutions will be made to work at every level of society.
DerekSmith
For fuck's sake, Derek: it's not difficult! All people have to do is to think about the consequences of their decisions and actions.
Do you really need the state to tell you what size kumquats are legal? Do you really need a quango to market potatoes you don't even grow? Do you really need the Social to tell you if your kids are fat?
What is wrong with you? Have you lost the ability to reason for yourself? Has every single person in this country become a complete vegetable, unable to make a decision about anything without a state-provided process and 17-page guideline booklet?
The complexity we're faced with is a consequence of the enormous state mechanism we have now. Take that out of the equation, and things become simple human interactions.
You do remember what those are, don't you?
Obo, you have risen to DerekSmith's bait (if that is indeed his real name). What people don't realise is how little a government can actually achieve (apart from making things worse).
Most people are unaware of most laws and probably break them all the time without any ill intention or nasty consequences. So most people wouldn't notice if kumquats became smaller (but cheaper) etc. Drivers on motorways routinely ignore the 70 mph speed limit where it is safe to drive 80 or 90 mph. And so on. There's no point me writing a list, you can make up your own examples.
I think, to some small degree, Derek may be right. One of a number of things might happen:
1. People hate the state, but for many it is comfortable, if despicable. You give them freedom and they don't know what to do with it. They panic and end up longing for the familiar, more limiting environment.
2. They don't even notice and carry on as usual.
3. People like the freedoms but hate the loss of benefits and being able to fob responsibility onto the government. (possibly the same as 1.)
I think each are possible. With the first, it would be necessary to ease them into the idea of more freedom. The Libertarian party acknowledges it cannot do everything it would like in the short term, so hopefully this might not be an issue. I believe this is the sort of thing Derek is anticipating.
The second I think would probably be the one to hope for, but I doubt it would happen, because the folks previously on benefits would kick up a bit of fuss, which leads nicely into point three. Sadly I have seen a lot of idiots who don't seem to get the whole liberty thing, but would definitely miss the "perks" of a large state micromanaging their lives. There would also be those who think that withdrawing the welfare hammock and minimum wage and not helping in education and healthcare would actually be cruel. These people probably would not see the benefits of a minimal government even if they were proved to them.
Personally, I'm in agreement with the Libertarian party on most things. But I do see how it would be difficult to get Joe Public on board with a fair few policies.
amb, that is why I am not a capital L Libertarian, I am a Pragmatarian.
That's much like the Libertarianism (as defined by LPUK), i.e. legalise drugs, scrap speed limits, leave EU/NATO and all the other stuff, but retain a simple flat tax system coupled with redistribution (whether in cash, health vouchers or education vouchers). The main losers would be the bureaucrats and corporatists, apart from that, for most people life would go on as normal.
I think people adapt better than most of us think they would, and better even than they think they would. You have to.
If your choices are reduced to, say, getting a job and earning for your littluns, or starving, you would get a job, particularlry if the penalty for crime was bloody hard.
The worst aspect of welfare statism is that is gives people a 'third way' that is dressed up as kindness, and very often people take it, not because they are bad or inherently lazy, but because it's there. It's human nature.
Libertarianism does not expect miracles, it just want what governments have been either unwilling or too scared to even try. Remember, even Thatcher bottled it, and for the same reason every other PM has: politicians have to think in the short term.
We know what the solution is, but we don't know how to get it.
At the moment we just blog.
I suggest that the need for some statement of rights, and a written Constitution, arises from the fact that we've seen the abrogation of Common Law, Natural Justice and Constitutional Monarchy. Ideally, the former should not be necessary and the latter should never have happened. I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood; not because of immigration, but as a consequence of an unwanted revolution wrought by soft-handed, traitorous lawyers.
Just a comment on a Bill of Rights. The one your forebearers wrote for the U.S. was short - all ten amendments fit on a page. Interestingly, none of it was an innovation. The rights they put on paper were the rights of free Enlishmen as generally accepted in 1776.
The Bill of Rights clearly defined those areas where the government could not transgress. This was not a gift of rights to citizens, but rather a clear limitation on the power of government. It is the reason today that the U.S. does not have hate speech laws but does still have gun rights and a robust right of self defense.
The Human Rights Act is a monstrosity. It in fact purports to grant rights to individuals, but every grant of rights contains an explicit back door provision for the government to take away the right so long as they can articulate a justification. Yes, it grants freedom of speech. But, it allows government to limit that speech for any of a host of loosely defined reasons. The HRA is not a bill of individual rights, it is blueprint for government control of society.
The other problem in the UK is that the House of Commons is pretty close to a tyranny. What they say is law. The crown is no longer a player. The House of Lords has been toyed with so much and its powers so limited, it is barely a road bump. The courts exist to enforce the laws of Parliament without a right of judicial review - except in as much as it refers to the insane HRA, the only outcome of which seems to be that the UK cannot deport anyone who is a violent terrorist.
Post a Comment