Freeborn John on libertarianism:
The idea that someone who advocates personal freedoms and a small State could place at the head of it a hereditary autocrat with unlimited powers is completely ludicrous. The libertarian, as a rule, is willing to devolve some limited power to the State, but there can be no place for unlimited power, however it might be hogtied by constitutional arrangements. Most of all, people who take as the starting point for their politics the notion that we are the owners, the sovereigns, of our own selves cannot accept another, superior, sovereign.
I have always been firmly opposed to the principle of monarchy and FBJ puts my feelings neatly into words – I am the only sovereign over myself. I accept no other authority over my identity, my body or my being.
At heart, Libertarianism is what used to be called ‘left wing’.
Well, I always considered myself left wing – that’s why I was a member of the Labour party. My views haven’t changed radically since the incumbent government took power, rather I realised that they did not represent those views. Those principally being; that we should be left alone to manage our lives and make our choices as we see fit, without interference from an intrusive state.
These ancestors, informed by struggles with Monarchs going back to Magna Carta, by the intellectual revolutions we call The Enlightenment, and by revolutionary Europe, realised that since power corrupts, the only safe way forward is to limit power. That remains true today, and it is why I consider myself to be a libertarian.
Yes, absolutely, spot on.
Agree with that, however we also need to pick our battles and I think personally that we can achieve more towards a libertarian political economy in the UK without taking on [email protected] to start with. It would be interesting to know quite what she thinks her sovereignty actually means in terms of “ruling” over others. My guess is that she would be most concerned about our freedom and happiness. And if so, whilst ideologically anathema to libertarians, probably best left alone for now.
Does anyone really think that the monarchy wields any real power over us? It doesn’t: it’s an illusion. However, I still like my assessment and solution to this problem: keep the monarch and make them the defender of our liberties and a Constitutional curb on Parliament.
After all, even if we managed to strip back the power of the state, we need to ensure that it doesn’t grow again. The monarch can be used to do that.
DK
Agree with DK – would rather have “King Log” than “King Stork.”
Sorry, DK, but you’re missing the points entirely. The issue is not whether the monarchy wields power over us, and nowhere in anything I’ve written is there any suggestion of this. Instead, there are three points:
1. I think Monarchy is wrong in principle.
2. Others disagree, and this is their right. But this view cannot be reconciled with Libertarianism. If you’re a monarchist you are not a Libertarian, though you might be a libertarian Tory.
3. The unlimited power of the monarch is exercised through Parliament and this is a catastrophe. It permits any amount of totalitarian creep. There should not be unlimited power at the centre of our system of government, but rather limited powers delegated by sovereign citizens – citizens who are sovereigns of their own selves. This is plainly the only Libertarian approach.
Peter, surely, the English royal family is largely a symbolic/constitutional thing. Yes, the government has far too much power, but the Royal Family has about the right amount, i.e. practically none. Look at abdication in 1937, the PM of the time exercised the wishes of the people and told the king to get stuffed.
In an ideal world, yes, maybe it would be desirable for everybody to be absolute sovereign of his own self, like a set of small independent islands. But, in practice, this state of affairs seems to be unstable. It seems to prefigure a shift of power, or to contain the potential for some demagogue to arise, who then uses charisma or force to accrue power to himself. Or if that doesn’t happen, a vocal majority start to exercise their its own bullying power, and take on the character of a mob. This being the case, it seems dangerous to leave an inviting vacuum at the apex of society, rather than a largely nominal figurehead.
Calls for a republic are on exactly the same level as this government’s perennial calls for and description of legislation as “modernisation” and “reform”. It’s a call for change without any thought as to what practical improvements (if any) will result. Republicanism appears to suit the psychological imperatives of republicans but I cannot see where my life will improve or my freedom (or anybody else’s) will be enhanced if the royal family is sent packing and a career politician becomes head of state.
Wow, go away for a day and all hell lets loose. Mind, I did kick over the ant hill somewhat.
Jock – Agree entirely. I’m not suggesting an immediate eviction of the Royal Family; not least for entirely pragmatic reasons. They are a less worse option that what would follow if we removed them immediately now. While the thought of a career politician replacing the monarch doesn’t appeal, I remain implacably opposed to the idea of a hereditary monarchy in principle as it runs against the very core of libertarianism.
DK – as a less worse option, yes, but see above, I would still object to the principle while accepting the pragmatic compromise.
Peter – catastrophe; now, there’s an understatement…
Hilary – I put forward an extreme position. I accept that in the real world there are compromises. The first and most obvious is that my freedom ends where it curbs another’s freedoms. This is why we have the rule of law and I support absolutely the rule of law. However, what we have experienced recently is a violation by government of the principle of self sovereignty. The vocal majority (or minority if you count Zanu Labour) is indeed exercising its own bullying power and it is this to which I vigorously object.
Umbongo – see above. It’s a principle thing. I’m not exactly in a hurry to see it come about because I know exactly what would happen under our current political climate.
Mark, the government has the monarch’s power. That’s the problem. They should have some power, but not unlimited. This is the issue. I’m not complaining about the Royal Family per se (though I think some complaints would be in order). My target is the government and Parliament.
Hilary, libertarians don’t argue for an entirely atomised society but rather that this principle of autonomy is one from which policies should be drawn or by which they should be informed.
Umbongo, the practical improvement in mind is the limitation of government power.
Longrider, quite. I would never in a million years overstate anything.
LR
Interesting post and comments.
I found this very interesting,
“I accept no other authority over my identity, my body or my being.”
I find this a quite exraordinary statement, and would be very interested in further explanation, although I do realize that you later qualified this by stating that you accept the rule of law. Why law in particular? What if you don’t agree with a particular law? Can you pick and choose?
I plan to refuse to co-operate with the identity cards act, so, I guess, yes, I’m picking and choosing. I use the Mahatma Gandhi get out on that one – if the government and the law is corrupt, then the right thing to do is disobey. In general, though, I am happy to accept the rule of law as a reasonable arrangement whereby we can rub along together without anarchy.
The general concept is that I own my body and my identity. What authority I lend to government is strictly limited. I do not accept the idea that we are chattels of the state and that the state should have access to every aspect of our lives.
I suppose the best qualification is that as sovereign over my own being, I agree to lend some aspects of that for the purposes of law – so, if I break the law (steal, for example) I sacrifice that sovereignty.
I wouldn’t be making such extreme statements if the government of the day had not become so utterly corrupted by power to the point where it is invading my identity.
You just can’t go past that excerpt from the holy grail – the constitutional peasant. Says it all.
Thanks for replying. Interesting.
I agree with you in large part, being a bit of a libertarian, republican etc. myself. However, I think libertarianism might benefit from a deeper discussion of what is meant by “liberty.” By liberty I presume you mean, and correct me if I’m wrong, freedom from coercion. Considering how many different forms of coercion exist,why pick on state coercion in particular? (I’m not saying you’re wrong).
You might say that the state has the force of the law behind it and can use force. And so it can, but in ordinary life there are far more effective means of coercion than the state. Such as morality, religion and the opinion of friends, family and wider society. Should these be ignored in pursuit of the libertarian ideal of liberty, subject to not harming others? If we do, is this not licence rather than liberty?
I note your comments regarding ID cards. You are quite right but out of interest do you approve of the law forcing bikers to wear crash helmets? Sorry about all the questions!
I would probably say that in an ideal libertarian society there would be very little “criminal” law, in that whatever activities that impinge on the rights of others to enjoy their freedom from coersion and self-ownership are most often torts or contract breaches. Though clearly there ought to be some mechanism which would help the most helpless assert their rights in such a system. This may be agents of the state, but it could just as well be private, local, mutual enforcement mechanisms.
Motorbike helmets, alongside most if not all traffic laws, drugs laws (including alcohol & tobacco) and many others are unnecessary nanny-state type laws that impinge on our freedoms.
Not too many questions, then… 😉
Starting with the last, first…No, I do not approve of the helmet law. Would I wear one? Yes, bloody stupid not to. Quite apart from impact resistance (more than the average skull) the wind in one’s face isn’t all its cracked up to be.
I dislike all coercion and will resist it. I don’t have a loyalty card, for example and will avoid businesses that attempt to manipulate me. If I take a dislike to their advertising, I’ll simply avoid giving them my custom.
Morality is a personal matter – and I will follow mine, not that of others. I follow no religion and will resist absolutely any attempts to coerce me. That said, I support absolutely the freedom of people to follow whatever religion they so choose.
As for opinion, while I will listen (and may even change mine given a sound argument), I don’t allow the opinions of others to guide me. I form my own and follow those. I’m incredibly stubborn when I need to be. 😉
The reason I pick on state coercion in particular is that this is the one that is currently so dangerous to liberty. I can choose not to buy from corporations that try to exercise coercion, but the state has the power to use the weight of criminal law against me.
Jock mentions common law – the “law between men”. In principle this is the ideal law. That said, we do have to have some criminal law as there will always be those who will take liberties… literally.
I think just basing your libertarianism on stopping the state from banning things, is at best only looking at half the picture of liberty. Like Peter Horne suggests, there are a whole host of coercions on liberty – unfair wealth distribution, market distortions, big business restricting competition, even peer and cultural pressure – these are far more dangerous in my mind. What power do I have to stop my town becoming a clone town if I am poor? At least through the ballot box my voice is more likely to be equal to someone elses who has vast wealth. I believe democracy is the best form of protection we have against abuse, much better than just mere spending power. Without laws to protect them, the poor are powerless – that is no sort of liberty at all. Your version means the more wealth you have – the more liberty you have. Not the sort of liberty most would ascribe to.
LR
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I think your concept of liberty is basically that of JS Mill, ie the absence of coercion, although you seem to recognise that it is more than the state that can be coercive.I presume you also believe that force can only be initiated in self defence.
Let’s try a little thought experiment. Suppose there is a country which has been taken over by a criminal gang who have looted the general population to line their own pockets and those of their supporters. The economy has been ruined and inflation has been running at 1000% a month and people are going hungry. They are crying out for help. As British Prime Minister you know that for the price of a few airstrikes and the deployment of a couple of brigades you can oust the gangsters and restore constitutional government.
Would you do it? Remember there is no question of self defence. I would.
You say morality is a personal matter and I’m not sure that’s true. I think morality is innate. There are very few societies where murder or theft are not considered immoral. It’s wired in the brain and then reinforced by parental injunctions, under threat of coercion. Parental disapproval becomes societal disapproval as we grow older. It is a form of coercion that becomes so natural that we don’t even notice it.
Another experiment. Suppose you could relieve someone of a substantial sum. Suppose there is no real victim, the sum will not be missed, the ostensible victim being, say a large corporation, or a billionaire for whom it is no more than a drop in the ocean. Also imagine that there is no way you can get caught, making the law irrelevant in this case.
Would you do it? I wouldn’t (easy to say I know!)and I don’t think you would either. If you agree, then you are acknowledging the superior claims of morality over law.
Peter – Morality. Well, yes, murder and theft are the obvious ones. But take abortion, sex outside of marriage, homosexual relationships, immodest dress and so on. Very quickly it becomes apparent that a personal perspective is involved (maybe the perspective of parents or culture, but it varies even so). Then there’s the matter of situational ethics muddying the waters: Even murder, which the vast majority deem to be wrong becomes a little wavery when people are faced with a dying loved one begging for merciful release. Is it moral to kill under such circumstances? Would you do it? I really cannot say if I could or not. What is the right thing? Different things for different people…
Scenario one – yes… if I was specifically asked by the people being oppressed. Otherwise, no.
Scenario 2 – no. I’m unconvinced about the idea of a victimless crime. Sometimes the victim is just not immediately obvious and sometimes the justification offered is that as it is a large corporation, no one will be hurt. That’s a fallacy – the client always ends up footing the bill.
But, then, I have already acknowledged the superior claim of morality over law… I am placing my morality above the law in refusing to go along with a new law that I consider to be immoral.
Neil – I’m sorry, but you demonstrate again that you simply do not understand the concept. If you followed the conversation properly you would have noticed that we have discussed other forms of coercion and I have acknowledged them. That said, I do not accept that the state is necessarily the appropriate arbiter. The less the state does, the better. At present, the most dangerous to our liberty comes from government.
As far as I’m concerned the monarchy should be retired, but not yet. The pomp and pageantry is a bit of a pantomime. But a pantomime is harmless fun, unlike the less showy but far more intrusive areas of the state. Given our train wreak of a constitution the nearly powerless monarchy is a the only potential break on the over mighty Prime Minister because the power, theoretically at least, comes from her. The state is far too overweening so lets try and fix that hole in the ship of state before getting rid of what could turn out to be a useful life belt.
Thanks once again.Funny how anyone who posts about libertarianism gets a load of stuff in the comments box eh?
It seems that your idea of liberty is not so very different from mine, ie, that liberty is not liberty at all unless it is constrained by law, morality and (where appropriate)religion. This is somewhat different from the conception of JS Mill where no form of coercion is acceptable except in self defence. My contention is that a too ready acceptance of Mill’s formulation can be mischievous in that it leads to a de-legitimisation of morality and other social constraints, and leave us only with the law and the law can’t be everywhere. So we have feral youths on the streets who no longer have any fear of anything because after all, morality and social disapproval are coercive and therefore not acceptable. But where does that leave ordinary people who can no longer go out after dark for fear of attack? They are not free in any practical sense.
Anyway, thanks for the conversation. No need to reply!