The proper function of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. It is a purely defensive, negative concept. It must be. People say that, if the law regulates justice, why shouldn’t it regulate labor, education, and religion? Because then it would be committing an injustice, destroying its first function. The law is force, imposing negation. Applying force to labor, education, or religion, or anything except justice, is destroying liberty - and justice. They tell us our doctrine has stopped at liberty, and should have gone on to fraternity. But that is false philanthropy. Enforced ‘fraternity’ destroys liberty. Justice is the only thing the law can enforce. The republics of the world have been arguing about ‘universal suffrage’ for as long as we can remember. But if the Law were confined to its proper functions, then everyone’s interest in the law would be the same, and no one would have any reason for trying to control it, and those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not. Unfortunately that is not the case - the law has been perverted, and has taken it into its head to take property from one party and give it to another, under the pretence of organization, regulation, protection, etc. So now every one wants to participate, and every class must fight to control the government and the franchise, either to protect themselves from plunder or to use the law to plunder others. Perverted law causes conflict.
Perverted law, or legal plunder, has an infinite number of names. They call it tariffs, protections, encouragement, subsidies, public schools, minimum wages, guaranteed jobs, insurance, social security, etc. All of these are examples of the government violating its responsibility, acting outside its lawful functions.
People say that the law must take care of ‘charity,’ must protect and provide for people with no money. But the law is not a source of money. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or class unless other citizens and classes have been compelled to put it there. There is no money outside society. The law cannot be an instrument of equalization unless it takes from some to give it to others, becoming an instrument of plunder.
People say that the law must be responsible for educating the poor. But the law is not a shining torch of learning. In society, some persons have knowledge while others do not. The law can do one of two things - permit a natural transaction of teaching and learning to operate freely, or force people to pay for government appointed teachers to instruct the ‘poor, uneducated.’ The latter is a violation of liberty and property.
Law is force, and it can only provide artificial unity and fraternity.
Socialism confuses the distinction between government and society. And just because some thing should not be done by the government, does not mean that they should not be done at all. Private organizations and individuals can do those things, without the use of force. That is the only difference between private and official. The government cannot be made to produce what it does not contain - wealth, science, religion, and the other things that constitute prosperity.
What is this concept of ‘liberty’ that all this political turmoil is focused on? It bears some definition. What else could it be, but the union of all liberties - liberty of conscience, education, association, travel, labor, trade, and the press? It is the freedom of everyone to make full use of his faculties, as long as he does not harm anyone else while doing so. It is the destruction of despotism. It is the restricting of the law to its rational sphere of organizing the right to lawful defense, of punishing injustice.
If law is confined to preventing injustice, what is the alternative? If we cannot apply law to conscience, education, labor, trade or association, then there are a hundred inherent risks in letting those things alone, with nothing to regulate them, and men will undoubtedly misuse and abuse their liberty in those areas. But that is still the best case scenario and the law still has no authority to regulate them until there is obvious injustice being committed. If we choose to surrender those rights to an absolute, arbitrary, invalid power, the situation is much worse.
Your short thesis is interesting; you have a good aptitude to discern the fundamentals among the numerous complicated issues of government. I tend to agree with the general principles you are outlining in the first part. Although, as you get into more details in this second part, you reveal yourself to be very liberal (in the classical sense), maybe even libertarian. I must disagree with you on some significant points. You write:
ReplyDelete“What right to authority or dominance do men collectively wield that they do not wield individually?”
The government does have an authority which does not belong to any single individual or group of individuals. By its very nature, government is the only entity which can edict laws, arrest citizens, judge criminals and execute sentences. Government has the monopoly over legitimate violence. Humans are gregarious creatures; we are meant for each other. We are meant to be supported and constrained by each other. Hierarchy and authority, if they can be abused, are not evils in themselves. After all, the Bible tells us to submit to the King…
Then, you write:
“People say that, if the law regulates justice, why shouldn’t it regulate labor, education, and religion? Because then it would be committing an injustice, destroying its first function.”
I fail to see what conception of justice would exclude labor, education and religion. I understand your point that the purpose of government is negative, that it is to prevent injustice rather than create justice since imposed justice is opposed to liberty, and thus unjust. Yet, injustice can manifest itself in labor, education and religion. If immoral preachers incited their followers to commit suicide, shouldn’t the government intervene? If immoral teachers told their students that Nazism is right and good, shouldn’t the government intervene? If immoral bosses forced needy workers to surrender their dignity, shouldn’t the government intervene? Freedom is a fundamental right, but it is neither the only nor the main fundamental right. The point where freedom is deemed to be abused (thus providing government legitimacy to intervene) is a matter of opinion (or possibly of conviction) but it is certainly not an obvious principle of justice. Socialists are not people who agree with the use of force to abuse the freedom of others: they are people who believe that the freedom of the poor is abused by the greed of the rich. I am also opposed to Socialism, but I believe such an accusation of Socialism is unfair.
You also write:
ReplyDelete“So now every one wants to participate, and every class must fight to control the government and the franchise, either to protect themselves from plunder or to use the law to plunder others.”
This state of affairs is not the consequence of government corruption: it is the consequence of the fall of mankind. Fallen mankind strives to subdue its vulnerable elements to abuse them; government is meant to restrain that strife. Thus, it is only logical that this strife which naturally occurs in society should now occur in government. The point of government is to civilize the struggle for dominance: to make it less brutal and less whimsical. This is why tyranny is obviously a bad thing (although I do not agree that it is obviously worst than the absence of government) but the point of government is to restrain the innumerable private tyrannies (supported either by physical force, by financial constraint or by mental influence) without becoming a single overpowered tyranny itself.
My overall point is not to deny the value of freedom: it is to show its relative value. We must not blindly obey government officials, but we must not reduce their authority to that of mere arbiters of private affairs. Government is a social entity just as real and legitimate as family. Both government and family can be the opportunity of the worst horrors and of the greatest beauties. Some Leftists want to chain the power of family; some Rightists want to chain the power of government: I believe both are wrong.
I also want to stress this point: I do not believe that, as a scholar on the subject, my opinion is any more valid intrinsically than yours. Great thinkers share your opinion on these matters; you must not be modest in their defense. As with every matter of philosophy, erudition and wisdom are not correlative.
Thank you for sharing your relevant thoughts; it is a pleasure to reflect on them!
Sylvain, thanks so much for commenting.
ReplyDeleteAs you observed, I did not really follow my thesis (that the proper function of the Law is to prevent injustice) to its logical conclusion. It is so much more comfortable to deal in abstract theoretical principles, which, though they no doubt influence practical application, (and very possibly need to come first) remain quite far removed from 'the real thing,' as we see it in pragmatic specifics, which are what really matters - unfortunately. I shall endeavor to defend, expound upon and modify my ideas.
To begin with the first statement you took issue with: “What right to authority or dominance do men collectively wield that they do not wield individually?” In my essay, the context was a reference to 'legal' encroachment by the government upon the person, liberty and property of an individual. The argument runs thus: If men individually have no right of encroachment, then men collectively do not either. The whole is not more than the sum of its parts. However, this statement was not meant to deny the legitimate right of the collective to prevent and punish 'injustice' (defined as violation of natural freedoms as stated above.) Obviously, those who encroach upon others forfeit - to some degree - their freedom of person, liberty, property, etc., and force the collective to take action against them. But the right of the individual is the only basis for the right of the collective, which is not some abstract infallible entity. True, it can be argued that in carrying out such retribution the collective has the monopoly of lawful force, a legitimacy that the individual does not - but I do not think this is necessarily the case. As an individual, I have a God-given right ('responsibility' may also be correct) to resist evil and injustice. If there is crime taking place, if I see someone molesting a child, do I not have the right to do what it takes to prevent that? We have courts and complex legal procedures because, after a crime has been committed, it is no longer a question of immediate reaction and individual right of resistance, but an often difficult matter of accumulating and considering evidence, discovering the perpetrator, deliberating a sentence, etc. Because of the nature of epistemology, this task is better suited to a body of individuals, which, though generally more convenient, consistent, balanced and reliable, still obtains its authority from the right of the individual. I have an inherent right to defend, by force, my life and liberty. Which principle is directly related to the fundamental belief that I can exercise my liberties howsoever I desire, so long as I do not encroach on yours. To quote Oliver W. Holmes - 'the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.'
Which brings us to the legitimacy of government itself. I'm not exactly sure what you meant here. The government IS a group of individuals; in a best case scenario, a group of individuals who represent to some degree the whole people - the other group of individuals (the majority) who are not directly involved. But it is never an abstract entity. I understand the necessity for society, and also that society inevitably compromises freedom to some degree. The question is, where to draw the line? And I begin to think you are right about hierarchy. For all practical purposes, Paine is correct when he says it is a necessary evil, in that it can never avoid being corrupted by the wickedness of humanity which it is intended to restrain, but the concept is not evil in itself. Though with self-repetitive History ever grimacing on the edge of our field of vision, it is kind of difficult to realize that. But the purpose of the government is not to make arbitrary laws, regulate society or even to interpret the will of the people. The purpose of government is to interpret and enforce 'Natural Law.' Government doesn't decide what is right and wrong - it creates laws that implement natural justice, that protect people from each other.
To continue: I think most differences of opinion come down to the interpretation of justice. It isn't actually very straightforward. How does it work out in practice? When it comes to labor, education, religion - my point here is not that the government is not responsible for addressing injustices within the social system, but that the government has no responsibility (and no authority) to provide such institutions. We should not have State-run schools, churches, businesses, etc. That is not part of the government's job description. (And there are some subjective matters of opinion where the government has no more right than anyone else to lay down a law.)
ReplyDeleteIf freedom is not the chief fundamental right, then what is? How is freedom relative? Relative to what?
Also, my intent was not to bash Socialism, or discredit its motives, though I see how that could be concluded from what I wrote. (Indeed, Marxism is one of the most beautiful and consistent ideologies out there, but its premises are false, so it cannot work, and too often results in despotic manipulation of the system.)
Good point about fallen mankind. I agree - I think I said something about it in my previous comment - and especially like how you defined the government's responsibility to restrain private tyranny.
I am not sure that the analogy between government and family is valid. Family is not purely a negative or defensive concept. Government as humanly defined would be unnecessary if men were inherently good, or if there had been no original Fall. Not so with family. Government is not designed to be an opportunity for positive 'beauty,' as family is. It is legal violence, political power, and I maintain that it is only justified as a negative force. History has shown us that political power is addictive, resulting in lust and corruption of awful proportions. I believe that in many places in the world, including America, the government has run rampantly out of control and is in sore need of being chained. It has gone beyond its lawful functions. How many of the laws enacted in the Canadian Parliament have to do with criminal justice? How many of them have to do with regulating the economy?
You have certainly thought about this more, and in much greater detail than I have. (I have two years of high school left, (I am sixteen) and I hope and expect my ideas on the topic will continue to develop and eventually fit reality a little better than they do now.)
Thank you very much for taking the time to address these issues. I love getting feedback!
This is a most interesting debate! If only politicians could have such discussions in public :)
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point when you say that government does not have a moral monopoly over legitimate violence but only a practical one. Individuals can also execute some legitimate violence in cases such as self-defence. The legal monopoly of the government is more a matter of epistemological convenience than one of moral validity. Yet, I was mentioning the monopoly of legitimate violence only as the first example which sprung to my mind among the existential gap between the government and the individual. Obviously, this one is flawed and you will not be satisfied with any flawed argument. Thus, I will engage in a more thorough elaboration on the issue.
You say that government is no greater than all groups of society; that the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. I believe this is false. There are countless examples where, in terms of human experience, a sum is much greater than its parts: the stones of a building, the verses of a poem, the members of a family, etc. Indeed, when divine Providence assembles various complementary elements into a single whole, it creates an entity which may be quantitatively identical to the sum of its parts but which is qualitatively of a much greater nature.
I agree that government would be unnecessary if mankind was not fallen, if it was perfect. Yet, a lack of necessity does not entail a lack of value. Similarly, it could be said that family would be unnecessary if mankind was not fallen: perfect humans could raise children communally without any familial institutions. Family, like government, claims positive value on its own merits as a human institution. Family, like government, is corrupted by the fall of mankind. I believe that the horrors committed by the family are at least as awful as those committed by the government. Conjugal violence, emotional abuses and incest are not less harmful than police violence, economic abuses and genocide. History has repeatedly shown the evils of a fallen government just as it has repeatedly shown the evils of a fallen family. We must denounce both evils but we must renounce neither institution.
The parallel between family and government is not only negative. The Bible ordained the family just as it ordained the government; it told children to obey their parents just as it told subjects to obey their king. There is indeed beauty and nobility in government just as there is in family. The greatness of the Noldor would be much lesser without their loyalty to their kings (it is fair to suppose that many individual Noldor disagreed with their king’s decisions); the feats of any people are much lesser if it doesn’t rally around a unitary purpose. The motto of the USA is “E Pluribus Unum”: “Together, we are One”. Honor and glory require some degree of collectivism if they are to acquire any significant historical incarnation. Voluntary submission and government coercion are the necessary components of any effective collectivism. As Lewis said in Mere Christianity, we must not be Totalitarians, but we must not be Individualists either.
You ask: If freedom is not the chief fundamental right, then what is? Nothing is. There are several fundamental rights, and justice is composed of their delicate balance. If any fundamental right is to be acknowledged as the chief of them all, justice becomes unbalanced and turns into injustice. How is freedom relative? Relative to what? It is relative to other fundamental rights such as security and dignity. Freedom is totally irrelevant for a citizen who would lack security and dignity. History is filled with examples where whole populations have surrendered their freedom because they were despairing of security and dignity. If the libertarians had their way in politics, their short-lived utopia would soon face a revolution of the dispossessed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I submit to you that the gap between a “private” and a “public” institution, far from being a dichotomous clarity, is a continuous spectrum. Between a private school with tons of national regulations and a public school with lots of local autonomy, there may be no significant difference whatsoever. In fact, in such an extreme-case example, the public school may actually be freer than the private school. The issue is definitely not about choosing between A or B but, as you put it, to draw the just line between them. At this point, it is wholly a matter of meticulous practical analysis and not one of lauding general principles. We must define what injustices are grave enough to justify government coercion and what injustices are not worth the infringement of private freedoms: no clear dichotomy can help us in this endeavor.
It’s funny that you are sixteen because, when I was sixteen, I was a fervent Marxist. Today, I still have some staunch Marxist sensibilities. I don’t believe in Marxism anymore because I acknowledge, as you rightly pointed out, that some of its premises are false but I believe that it answered several issues which Capitalism and Liberalism fail to consider properly (for example, I believe that class struggle is a valid and important premise). Propriety is a natural right in that all persons have the right to own the fruits of their labor but, when a political or economic system erects ownership into the main mean to valuate individuals and ideas, it is a corruption of everything humane and Christian. Capitalists and Liberals may claim this is not what not their system is meant to be, but History has shown that is what it actually did. Fallen mankind has always been deferent and even idolatrous to ownership, but the capitalism and liberalism of modernity have purified it of its old respects for courage (in monarchy) and wisdom (in theocracy). Today, rich businessmen have way more power than courageous soldiers and wise scholars. This state of affairs if certainly preferable to a Communist tyranny, but it is still a great social tragedy.
Again, it is a pleasure to discuss with you! Your reflections are deeper and more mature than those of most aged political activists I know; I believe you can definitely elaborate some meaningful perspective on these grave human issues. Have you ever read the Utopia of Usurers (by Chesterton)? I think this book might be very formative to your political viewpoint.
Yes - this would certainly be an improvement. Why do politicians never think to discuss the nature of government? So much more important and interesting than dull 'what does the economy look like today?' discussions.
ReplyDeleteEpistemological convenience, not moral validity. I agree. I also concede your point that there are many cases where the whole is qualitatively more than the sum of its parts. Fallacy of composition, I guess - my mistake. But how far we can apply that principle to government remains ambiguous. There is, doubtless, some legitimacy in the concept of the right of the majority, but it cannot have the final word, it cannot make a solid foundation for the authority of the government. The will of the majority is a very fallible standard. You say 'a lack of necessity does not entail a lack of value.' I do not follow. Government is of value, because it is necessary, because mankind is fallen. What else makes it valuable? Again, I beg to differ as regards the institution of family. I do not see that there is anything to indicate that family (as opposed to government) is a result of the Fall; that it is only necessary because of the fallen-ness of mankind. Raising children communally does not strike me as an ideal scenario in any sense of the word, or a likely occupation for perfect humans. Obviously, the institution has become deplorably corrupt, but I do not think it is a result of corruption. That is the inherent difference.
I recognize and respect the significance of collectivism as the only practical means of achieving some things. But historical incarnation is very low on my list of individual or national priorities, and honor and glory are rather useless in themselves. I would also venture that the correct answer to a dilemma is not necessarily a half way point between two extremes. I tend to lean towards an individualistic outlook, and I can't say I appreciate the United States motto, or that I am very nationalistic. Blind collectivism has been perhaps the biggest mistake of mankind. It undermines individual choice and the independent will as an autonomous agent gets trampled in the 'herd mentality' that is directed by, and gets its motive force from, the will of a dictator or an exclusive elite (because there is always an Elite, as you have aptly pointed out.) The Napoleonic Wars, the Holocaust, the Crusades, the Armenian genocide, the rebellion of Feanor and the Exile - all of these gigantic tragedies (and these are obviously only a few examples - I expect that a large percentage of historical conflicts could be traced to this source) occurred because the warped ambitions of one man (or sometimes several) indoctrinated and saturated an entire society of individuals who, instead of thinking and acting for themselves and exercising their independent wills, sacrificed individual responsibility and personal duty to conscience and God, for social confidence and collective intoxication, following the banner of 'the whole' wherever it led. (Most of them did achieve historical incarnation - is that necessarily a good thing?) Twain said, 'If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is probably time to stop and reconsider.' And most negative collectivism is directly related to nationalistic chauvinism, which is deeply ingrained in people and has been all throughout history. As in, the incredibly fallacious notion that my side is right simply because it is my side. The Us vs. Them mentality. Conflict over power, not principles. I find it revolting. I have a duty to my country because...why? Because it's my country? *emphasis on MY* Seriously? (And I am not some liberal, anti-America activist - not in any sense of the phrase, but I find the widely accepted definition of patriotism and citizenship very disturbing.)
Christ tells us to be subject to the authority of our rulers - and it is true that God has somehow 'given' those in power their authority, in the sense that, if God is sovereign, He must have allowed them to be where they are. That does not mean our current rulers are good, or that their authority is valid. I do not believe that the sovereignty of God implies that because something is a certain way it should be that way, and there is nothing we can or ought to do about it. Just as, in the Old Testament, God reluctantly allowed Saul to be king. God did not ordain the monarchy - He regretted it. Ideally, He was the people's only King, but then went astray, and He let them, because He does not force obedience. The only perfectly legitimate form of government is an absolute monarchy - with God as King. Meanwhile, we have to choose the lesser of many evils and make it work as well as we can.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that security and dignity are 'fundamental rights.' Neither are 'life' and the 'pursuit of happiness.' They are directly related to, and relevant aspects of, indeed, they are inherent in, the single, all-encompassing right to freedom (non-encroachment.) (I think 'liberty' is a better word.) If someone is encroaching on my life, they are quite obviously encroaching on my freedom. The only legitimate way our liberties can be encroached upon, is if we forfeit them ourselves. Until that occurs, someone encroaching on our security or dignity is, by very definition, encroaching on our liberties/rights/freedoms. (I think in this scenario those words are interchangeable.) As for your example, I think it would be more accurate to say that 'history is filled with examples of whole populations surrendering [certain specific freedoms] because they were despairing of [certain other freedoms] such as security and dignity, [and they were being forced to choose between them.]' Liberty is the consummation of all God-given, self-evident rights. But I do concede that justice is composed of the delicate balance of the aforementioned rights.
Very valid point about defining injustice. I think the principle of private education is sound, and there really is no conceivable way that education falls under the authority of the Law, but injustice does. What would actually happen, where we would actually have to draw the line, is the question, although I think there is reason to expect that it would still be feasible.
About Marxism and the issue of property - I tend to agree. (I assume you are not referring to the prevalent contemporary definition of 'Liberal,' which would not exactly be synonymous with 'Capitalist,' but rather to the original label as it was generally understood in the 19th century, or thereabouts (although even that is somewhat subject to interpretation.) The idolatry of wealth, property and ownership, defining and evaluating a person by what they have, is by all means a deplorable social tragedy, (and very anti-Christian) and inevitably leads to a wealthy ruling elite, (known only too well throughout the political history of Britain as 'the landed gentry.') (Speaking of which, I found your essay/article on the injustice of inheritance very interesting. The Old Testament Jubilee and 'redistribution laws', so to speak, make a very similar case against the accumulation of wealth.)
I have not read the Utopia of Usurers, but it looks very interesting, (as does everything Chesterton wrote!) and I shall make a point to do so in the near future. Thanks for the recommendation!
In saying that a lack of necessity does not entail a lack of value, I mean that unnecessary things can be very valuable. Food is more necessary than art but it should be agreed that art is not less valuable than food. If mankind was not fallen, government and family would not be necessary since citizens and children would have no dangers to fear. Yet, a world without families and governments would be imperfect. Family provides personal growth which no communal raising of children can provide; government provides historical incarnation which no individual initiative can provide.
ReplyDeleteAs for the historical incarnation itself, I wholeheartedly agree that it has very little value in itself. Just as power overall, it is a means and not an end. Its moral value depends entirely on its end. And just as power, it is evil if it is its own end. Yet, whenever we value some things as good, it is our moral duty to provide them with historical incarnation. If we believe charity and justice are good, it is not enough that we act with charity and justice: we must strive to make the human race more charitable and more just as a whole. Mankind was lost as a whole in Adam and redeemed as a whole in Jesus: the spiritual story of mankind is a collective story. I do not mean to minimize the importance of individual salvation; I simply mean that historical incarnation provides government with a positive purpose regardless of the Fall, just like family.
In Mere Christianity, at the end of chapter 6 of book IV, Lewis writes this: “But a Christian must not be either a Totalitarian or an Individualist. I feel a strong desire to tell you – and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me – which of these two errors is the worse. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs-pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them.”
I fear this is the trap you are falling into by denouncing the various evils of collectivism with passion and eloquence while stating laconically that the evils of individualism are merely the consequences of the Fall. Individualism is also the cause of many great human tragedies. Collectivists tend to be blind, but individualists then to be egoistic. Collectivism works against wisdom, but individualism works against charity. It is not necessarily so, but goodness lies precisely in the balance between these opposite values. Except when we discuss good and evil themselves, the correct answer is always balance between the extremes. Too much courage will lack prudence and become temerity. Too much forgiveness will lack justice and become indulgence. Too much temperance will lack joyfulness and become acerbity. If virtues can be pushed to excesses and twisted into sins, it is certainly true of social organization.
My understanding of God’s reluctance for allowing the ancient Israelis to have a king of their own is related to their motives: they wanted to be like other peoples while they should have been pleased with being the distinct Chosen People. God has been reluctant about that particular desire for a monarchy, but He has never expressed any reluctance about government itself. On the contrary, the Bible contains numerous propositions in favor of government (Rom 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13, Titus 3:1, etc.). These propositions are not any less clear or any more ambiguous than those in favor of family; we must defy ungodly commands from government just as we must defy ungodly commands from family. In front of such explicit and repeated statements, I believe it is quite far-fetched to see God’s reluctance about Israel’s monarchy in the Old Testament as the proof that government is a necessary evil resulting from the Fall rather than a godly institution corrupted by the Fall.
ReplyDeleteI see how you can envision liberty as the all-encompassing right, but I do not see how this is useful in order to define justice. If “liberty” is simply meant to be synonymous with “justice”, it provides us with no additional hint in order to define it while putting us in danger of overestimating the value of freedom as we balance the relative weight of each right composing justice. Personally, I would rather see dignity as the all-encompassing right because, while one’s freedom can be used to abuse the freedom of others, dignity can never be used wrongfully. Also, on a more philosophical level, dignity is a more fundamental notion than freedom: dignity implies the equal worth of each human being (which is an outstanding moral statement) while freedom implies that humans are entitled to act however they wish (which evil people may approve wholeheartedly).
I’m glad that you agree with my statement about defining justice, but I feel you missed my point as you say there really is no conceivable way that education falls under the authority of the Law. Since you admit that educational injustice falls under the authority of the Law, education itself cannot be outside its grasp. Anywhere injustice may occur is under the authority of the Law, and injustice may occur everywhere. This is why Totalitarianism is such a danger: if injustice crawls into every aspect of society (or if ill-intentioned leaders make it appear so), government crawls into everything behind it. Yet, however great the danger of Totalitarianism may be, I cannot conceive how libertarians may presuppose that government is fundamentally illegitimate to impose its law against whatever true injustice there is. I admit that allowing some injustices is preferable to government intervention (which often brings its lot of new injustices with it) but I cannot accept the idea that we should presuppose such a thing in any case. Again, this is a delicate balance which must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Indeed, when I mention Liberals, I mean the classic sense of the word referring to John Stuart Mill, Alexis de Tocqueville and the like. In Europe (and in Québec, which largely preserved an European political tradition), the world “Liberal” has maintained this meaning. In a way, I could consider myself as a Liberal in the sense of being opposed to the oppressive authoritarianisms which prevailed during the Enlightenment but I don’t believe the classic liberals would approve the modern-day libertarian strand promoting the free rein capitalism which currently dominates Western culture. An era may have too much political authority but another era may lack political authority. My belief is that our current balance is quite fine but I see both Socialists and Capitalists trying to break this balance. Socialists want an all-powerful government which is meant to make humans perfect while Capitalists want an emasculated government which would leave all the power to private entities. Both of these aims are, in my eyes, corrupted ideals. As John Locke and Charles de Montesquieu plead for a balance of power within the branches of government (executive, legislative and judiciary), I believe we should also wish for a balance of power within the branches of society (political, economic, spiritual). A government with a significant amount of power is necessary for such a social balance.
ReplyDeleteI rejoice that you appreciated my article about the Lords of the Capital. It does show that your love of freedom is really that instead of an egoistic refusal to share with your neighbors (which, I feel, is the reality of many individualists). Yet, the issue of inheritance is a great example of freedom being opposed to justice. If the government limits of amount of wealth which can be inherited by the children of the richest people, this is a direct and obvious encroachment of their right to do whatever they wish with their property. I believe this is fair and that many other encroachments to individual liberties are fair.
As always, it is a pleasure to discuss these issues! You seem to be very confident in discussion; this is why I allow myself to engage in confrontation statements. Discussions about agreement are often very pleasant, but discussions about disagreement tend to be the most constructive (if all parties are intellectually honest), which makes them that much more enjoyable!