Archive for the ‘#liberalism’ Tag

Classical Liberalism Has Failed   Leave a comment

 

What do I mean by that?

It’s an acknowledgment that classical liberals failed in their attempt to limit the power of the state and our current mess in Washington DC is a prime example.

Their failure resides in their ideal allowing for the very thing that is poison to liberty. You see, classical liberals believed that at least a minimal state is necessary for a  functional civil society.  Unfortunately, once the state exists, it is impossible to limit its power.

Believe it or not, I didn’t believe that myself until fairly recently and I instinctively shy away from that realization, but it becomes increasingly obvious to me that even a minimal state will seek to acquire more power and grow far beyond what its original intention, no matter how we might try to limit it.

Image result for image of a public road with potholesOur Founders believed there was such a thing as “public good” – basically, the joint supply of services in such a way as to cease rivalry by a body with a monopoly on institutional coercion that obliges everyone to finance those goods.

Example?

Prior to the creation of the federal government in 1789, lighthouses in the United States were colonial- or state-owned and often privately managed.  Local entities collected “light-dues” based on the tonnage of vessels using the ports the lighthouse protected.

So, most people grew up with publicly managed lighthouses and assumes the state that stood behind them was necessary, even though England had an entire system of privately-managed and -financed lighthouses for centuries before the government took them over. Sailors associations, port fees, and spontaneous social monitoring offered an effective solution to any issues arising from private-ownership.

The “wild” west was indeed wild when first opened to settlement, but many of the problems of, for example, property rights of land and cattle had been worked out before the federal government finally got around to administering those territories. The now much-maligned entrepreneurial innovations like cattle branding, constant supervision by armed cowboys on horseback, and the introduction of barbed wire solved the majority of the issues there a long time before the government showed up.

Today, because the government controls the western states and puts forth a narrative that there would be chaos (just look at the Hollywood movies!) if the state weren’t there to protect the west from “anarchy”, people believe there is no alternative to the state controlling most of the lands in the American west.

People observe that today’s highways, hospitals, schools, police protection, etc., are almost entirely supplied by the state, and deeming these services to be necessary (which they are), they conclude without further analysis that the state must also be necessary.

Most people believe the state is also necessary to protect the defenseless, poor and “destitute”. Small depositors, ordinary consumers, and workers are all deemed too fragile and stupid to take care of themselves.

What if the above-mentioned resources could be produced to a much higher standard of quality more efficiently, economically and individually adaptable through entrepreneurial creativity, private property and spontaneous market order? For example, why am I stuck paying $80 a month for garbage collection on my city lot? I’m charged this regardless if I put out any trash. I might only put out one can every two weeks while my neighbor (who owns a daycare center) puts out a half-dozen cans every week … yet we pay the same amount. Why? Because a statist monopoly requires regimentation and prevents any sort of competition for our money. I could negotiate with a private company  to meet my actual needs and charge me for my actual needs rather than my government-perceived needs.

The hospital in my town is privately owned, though heavily regulated by the state. It never turns anyone away. It didn’t before the state got involved because it was owned by a church. Do those regulations assure that everyone is covered? It wasn’t the case in the past. Why would it be the case now? Have churches doing medical ministries changed their ministries substantially since government started regulating them? But we’re told these regulations are necessary because …????

But what about the roads?

What about them? My neighborhood roads currently look like a map of the moon with a few craters filled in. I live inside the City of Fairbanks where we see road maintenance rarely. Despite the fact that we get significant amounts of snowfall here, we expect to see the plows in March. Sometimes they might do a pass after a heavy dump, but they’ll inevitably leave a berm at the bottom of our driveway that requires quick and muscular action for about two hours after work to clear before the temperatures drop and turn it into immovable white concrete.

My brother lives outside the city in the borough (like a county) which technically does not have road powers. The roads around his house are maintained by a road commission that he pays fees to. The commission hires a contractor to take care of the road. These roads rarely have potholes and they’re fixed quickly if they occur. The snow is generally cleared by the time he gets home from work or when he gets up in the morning. Yes, it costs money, but less than what is collected from me in property taxes. Although the road service areas are administered through the borough, several of them existed before the borough took control of them and they would largely continue to be unaffected if the borough stopped collecting paperwork on them because people would still need to get to and from their homes if the borough stopped functioning in that capacity. My brother gets better road maintenance for less money from the private sector than I do from the public sector.

By the way, he can also now get trash collection from a private company for about the same amount as we pay in the city. I interviewed the owner of the company and he explained that if he had more customers, he could afford to charge less and provide more flexibility in service than he currently does.

Although the state insists its existence is necessary to defend property rights and coordinate social processes, the fact is that they are a body with a monopoly on violence (or its more subtle sister, coercion). The state invariably acts by trampling on numerous legitimate property titles, defending them very poorly, and corrupting the moral and legal behavior of individuals toward the property rights of others.

We shouldn’t be so wedded to the status quo that we refuse to see there might be other, better ways of doing things.

 

 

Eclipse of Liberalism   3 comments

The following was printed in the newspaper “The Nation” on August 9, 1900. Special thanks to the Molinari Institute for preserving this essay.

 

Found on Foundation of Economic Education (FEE.org)

Edwin Godkin

As the nineteenth century draws to its close it is impossible not to contrast the political ideals now dominant with those of the preceding era. It was the rights of man which engaged the attention of the political thinkers of the eighteenth century. The world had suffered so much misery from the results of dynastic ambitions and jealousies, the masses of mankind were everywhere so burdened by the exactions of the superior classes, as to bring about a universal revulsion against the principle of authority. Government, it was plainly seen, had become the vehicle of oppression; and the methods by which it could be subordinated to the needs of individual development, and could be made to foster liberty rather than to suppress it, were the favorite study of the most enlightened philosophers. In opposition to the theory of divine right, whether of kings or demagogues, the doctrine of natural rights was set up. Humanity was exalted above human institutions, man was held superior to the State, and universal brotherhood supplanted the ideals of national power and glory.

These eighteenth-century ideas were the soil in which modern Liberalism flourished. Under their influence the demand for Constitutional Government arose. Rulers were to be the servants of the people, and were to be restrained and held in check by bills of rights and fundamental laws which defined the liberties proved by experience to be most important and vulnerable. Hence arose the demands for Constitutional reform in all the countries of Europe; abortive and unsuccessful in certain respects, but frightening despots into a semblance of regard for human liberty, and into practical concessions which at least curbed despotic authority. Republics were established and Constitutions were ordained. The revolutions of 1848 proved the power of the spirit of Liberalism, and where despotism reasserted itself, it did so with fear and trembling.

Image result for image of liberty distortedTo the principles and precepts of Liberalism the prodigious material progress of the age was largely due. Freed from the vexatious meddling of governments, men devoted themselves to their natural task, the bettering of their condition, with the wonderful results which surround us. But it now seems that its material comfort has blinded the eyes of the present generation to the cause which made it possible. In the politics of the world, Liberalism is a declining, almost a defunct force. The condition of the Liberal party in England is indeed parlous. There is actually talk of a organizing a Liberal-Imperialist party; a combination of repugnant tendencies and theories as impossible as that of fire and water. On the other hand, there is a faction of so-called Liberals who so little understand their traditions as to make common cause with the Socialists. Only a remnant, old men for the most part, still uphold the Liberal doctrine, and when they are gone, it will have no champions.

True Liberalism has never been understood by the masses of the French people; and while it has no more consistent and enlightened defenders than the select group of orthodox economists that still reverence the principles of Turgot and Say, there is no longer even a Liberal faction in the Chamber. Much the same is true of Spain, of Italy, and of Austria, while the present condition of Liberalism in Germany is in painful contrast with what it was less than a generation ago.

In our country recent events show how much ground has been lost. The Declaration of Independence no longer arouses enthusiasm; it is an embarrassing instrument which requires to be explained away. The Constitution is said to be “outgrown”; and at all events the rights which it guarantees must be carefully reserved to our own citizens, and not allowed to human beings over whom we have purchased sovereignty. The great party which boasted that it had secured for the negro the rights of humanity and of citizenship, now listens in silence to the proclamation of white supremacy and makes no protest against the nullifications of the Fifteenth Amendment. Its mouth is closed, for it has become “patriot only in pernicious toils,” and the present boasts of this “champion of human kind” are “To mix with Kings in the low lust of sway, Yell in the hunt, and share the murderous prey; To insult the shrine of Liberty with spoils From freemen torn, to tempt and to betray.”

Nationalism in the sense of national greed has supplanted Liberalism. It is an old foe under a new name. By making the aggrandizement of a particular nation a higher end than the welfare of mankind, it has sophisticated the moral sense of Christendom. Aristotle justified slavery, because Barbarians were “naturally” inferior to Greeks, and we have gone back to his philosophy. We hear no more of natural rights, but of inferior races, whose part it is to submit to the government of those whom God has made their superiors. The old fallacy of divine right has once more asserted its ruinous power, and before it is again repudiated there must be international struggles on a terrific scale.

At home all criticism on the foreign policy of our rulers is denounced as unpatriotic. They must not be changed, for the national policy must be continuous. Abroad, the rulers of every country must hasten to every scene of international plunder, that they may secure their share. To succeed in these predatory expeditions the restraints on parliamentary, even of party, government must be cast aside. The Czar of Russia and the Emperor of Germany have a free hand in China; they are not hampered by constitutions or by representatives of the common people. Lord Salisbury is more embarrassed, and the President of the United States is, according to our Constitution, helpless without the support of Congress. That is what our Imperialists mean by saying that we have outgrown the Constitution.

I suspect Godkin would send a copy of this essay to the current editor of “The Nation” were he alive today. Lela

Posted February 23, 2017 by aurorawatcherak in Liberty, Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

Inside My Mind

Words from my brain

Happiness Between Tails by da-AL

Tales of Writing + Books + Compassion + Culture + Wagging Tails

Fairfax and Glew

Vigilante Justice

The Wolf's Den

Overthink Everything

SaltandNovels

Sprinkling wonder into writing

Remmington Reads

A book enthusiast bringing you all things bookish

MiddleMe

Becoming Unstuck

Magical BookLush

A New Dimension to Explore!! Love for books and series is all we need. Life can be lonely without books. All I love is books, series, and talking about serious causes like bodyshaming. Do join me if you love to live your life to the fullest

Jacquie Biggar-USA Today Best-selling author

Read. Write. Love. 💕💕💕

Not Very Deep Thoughts

Short Fiction and Other Things

Ediciones Promonet

Libros e eBooks educativos y de ficción

the dying fish

Book info, ordering, about me etc. in upper right

%d bloggers like this: