Who Wants War?

(Recent events in Syria have made this one from the archives - March 20th, 2006 was its date - topical.)

If it was put to a referendum of all the world's adult people, should war be outlawed or not, how many would favour war?

I suspect that most people, if they really thought about it, would want to ban war. It's such a drain – on lives, on resources, on freedom, on prosperity, on happiness. So why should we tolerate it?

Come to that, why should we tolerate those that want to subject others to war? Or those that voluntarily take part in an aggressive war? Isn't here something badly wrong with those that have a liking for war?

Now, I'm not saying we should all be reckless pacifists. Of course we human beings need military defence – as the world is now. As long as warmongers like George W. Bush exist, we need to be able to defend ourselves against them.

Bush and co claim to want to bring democracy to the world. So surely they wouldn't object to us human beings having a say, for a change? Surely they would support a world-wide referendum on outlawing war? And on what sanctions we should use against the mass murderers that order wars, and the violent vermin that do their dirty work?

I'm dreaming, of course.

Community? What Community?

(Neil's Note: This one is hot off the press. Long, and quite complicated; but, I hope, well worth the read.)

In recent months, borders and migration have been much in the news. This is a subject, on which I find myself disagreeing with traditionalists, conservatives and even many libertarians. For, as I wrote in an essay on the Libertarian Alliance (LA) forum back in 2013 [1]: “I favour not so much open borders, as no borders – at least, no political borders, and so no barriers to migration.”

So, a few months ago I set myself to try to understand more fully the ideas of those on the other side of this issue. I owe thanks, first, to Keir Martland for his part in a most illuminating discussion in a comment thread on the LA website in late July. And second, to John Kersey for his clear enunciation of a traditionalist position in his speech to the Traditional Britain Group on 12th September 2015 [2]. This essay is, in part, a reply to John’s views as there expressed.

Why bother?

Let me begin by asking: Why should I, an avowed radical, bother what conservatives think? The answer is simple; I share many values with them. For the part of me, which looks to the past for inspiration, sees great worth in the ideas of the 17th- and 18th-century Enlightenment. Some of these values are: Reason and the pursuit of science. Toleration of difference, most of all in religion. The idea that society exists for the individual, not the individual for society. The idea that human beings are naturally good. Freedom of thought and action. Natural rights and human dignity. Government for the benefit of the governed. Formal equality and the rule of law. A desire for human progress, and a rational optimism for the future.

I would hope that most conservatives today, even those on the further right, would agree with many if not all of these values. And, indeed, with many of my views on what constitutes civil or virtuous conduct. Such as: independence and self-reliance; seeking and telling truth; peacefulness and non-aggression; taking responsibility for one’s actions; respect for property, privacy and other human rights; economic productivity and trade; honesty and integrity.

Moreover, conservatives and I share many enemies; socialists and greens the most obvious among them. So, it’s important to me to try to understand why, on the subject of borders and migration, my view is so far away from people with whom I can agree in so many other ways.

Community

I think that one root of the issue, at least, may lie in a difference in our understanding of what community is. One message I took home from my discussion with Keir is that English conservatives feel a strong attachment to something they call the community, or sometimes “the people.” This seems to be, specifically, a political community; and it’s coterminous with, if not exactly the same as, the state commonly called “Britain” or “the UK.”

In contrast, for me, there’s no such thing as the community. I see each human being as a member of many different communities. (For example, the brass band I play in is one. The LA blogosphere is another). No single one among these communities can be dignified with the definite article the.

Here’s my conception of community. I see the word as having two derivations. First, as a group of people who have things in common. And second, from com- and the Latin munire, to fortify, so meaning sharing walls. Thus, I think of a community as being defined by two aspects: binding forces, which hold the people of the community together; and walls, which separate them from those outside.

I recognize communities at several levels. First, the community of one, the individual; bound together by personality, and walled by human rights. Next, partnerships and marriages, bound together by voluntary contract. Then families, bound together by kinship. The marketplace, bound together by mutual trade. And societies, bound together by shared purpose and sense of belonging. (These include communes, the word I use for societies walled in by geographical boundaries as well as by membership. Monasteries and university colleges are examples of communes).

At the highest level comes what I call Civilization. Civilization is bound together by shared values of, and a shared commitment to, civil behaviour. And it’s walled, not by any geographical boundary, but by a strong distaste for uncivility and for those that practise it. If there was anything I could call the community, it would be this – as yet, unrealized – Civilization.

In my scheme, there’s no place for a political community. Indeed, as I put it back in 2007 [3]: “Any community, of which I could feel a part, would blackball most, if not all, of today's politicians, and many of their toadies.” I feel no sense of community or shared culture with Blair, Brown or Cameron, or with any of their cronies or hangers-on. Far from sharing my values like truth, honesty, non-aggression and respect for individual rights, they actively flout them. Blair, Brown, Cameron and their kind are no more my fellows than Hitler or Stalin would have been.

As to the state, I see its claim of sovereignty, and the moral privileges it arrogates to itself, as incompatible with moral equality, and so with the rule of law and justice. Thus, I reject the state as [4]: “a hangover from a way of thinking that pre-dates John Locke by 100+ years.” And that’s why I say, of the UK state: bugger bloody Britain.

Property and land

Now I’ll backtrack a little way, and talk about property; specifically, land. Early in his talk, John Kersey says that freedom and civilization are based on the premise that land should be privately owned. I heartily agree; indeed, I go further. For me, all containable resources both can and should be privately owned; that is, by individuals or by voluntary societies. This includes areas of land and water, goods and chattels, and even some animals. (But it doesn’t include human beings. This is because humans, being moral agents, can’t be legitimately owned by anyone).

Items of real property, including land and buildings, confer on their owners certain rights. The most important of these, for the purpose of this discussion, is the right to set boundaries around and, at need, within the property. That is, to make and to enforce rules on access to the property, including which parts of it may be accessed by whom, when and for what purposes. Where the property is individually owned, these rules are up to the owner. Where the owner is a group of people, the rules will be agreed in some way among the group.

However, property can also place responsibilities on its owners, as well as giving them rights. For example, someone who buys a gun acquires a responsibility not to use it to shoot innocent people! Succinctly put, property must be used with propriety.

This is also important in the case of land. I see an ethical obligation of all landowners, which I call “non-encirclement.” This means that you must not use your property (either alone or with others) to surround someone else’s, and so to imprison them or to prevent them receiving visitors. And more generally, your right in your land is not so absolute that you can forbid others entirely to pass, peacefully and quietly, across your land if they have no other reasonable way to where they want to go. After all, if you stop them crossing your land, there’s nothing to prevent them doing the same thing, tit-for-tat, to you.

Private and public space

In the 2013 essay I referred to earlier, I built a picture of how borders might exist in a world based on libertarian principles. This included a general presumption of freedom of movement along defined routes (easements), even across property owned by others. In fact, this is not far away from how rights of way in the UK evolved in the first place. Bruce Benson has written a most interesting monograph [5] detailing, among much else, how the UK road system came about, and the shambles which on several occasions resulted from political interference by kings and others.

So, as I wrote back in 2013: “In a libertarian world, land (and water, too) would, I think, become divided into two types of space. There would be private (owned) space, with borders and designated easements. And there would be public (open to all) space, made up of those easements. Furthermore, I expect there would be, ultimately, only one public space, which would be connected. That is, any point of it would be accessible from any other without leaving the public space.”

There’s no place, in this picture, for any borders inside the public space. The only valid boundaries are those which arise from the property rights of individuals, groups, societies or communes. And these boundaries are all either at the edges of, or within, private spaces.

Moreover, these boundaries can only restrict movement from the public space (or from others’ private spaces) into private space, not in the opposite direction. Thus, absent good reasons to deny access to it to specific individuals (for example, to those convicted of serious crimes and thereby sentenced to incarceration), the public space must be open to all, without exception. And once an individual is legitimately in the public space, he has the right to go anywhere in the public space.

The city

Next, I’ll give an example of a society which has a border, and controls who may cross it, but in a way which doesn’t contradict libertarian principles.

Consider a group of people living in an area subject to incursions by warlike, marauding tribes. Growing tired of predations, they decide to work together to erect defences. They form a City Wall Society. The purpose of this society is to build, and to maintain, walls for the defence of the people inside, and gates for passage. All those living inside must be members of the CWS, and pay their share for its upkeep. There will be associate members, too. For example, farmers whose lands are outside the gates, but who have the right to take shelter in the city at need.

Here, we have an embryonic city state. The City Wall Society owns the walls and the gates, and sets rules as to who may be allowed to pass into the city, when and for what purposes. These rules would, for example, secure permanent residence for all full members of the CWS and their dependants. They would allow temporary entry to those specifically invited in by inhabitants of the city. And they would allow for visits, regular or one-off, by tradesmen from outside. Moreover, due to the principle of non-encirclement, no-one would ever be denied exit from the city without very good reason, such as a substantiated accusation of a real crime.

This is a political society, in the strict meaning of the word; it’s a society of the city. And such a community, if its walls and its people are sufficiently strong, could last for a long time. For the city brings an important value, defence against external enemies, to each and every inhabitant and associate. And so, every person in the community has a strong incentive to continue as a member of it, and to do what he can for it.

Sovereignty

Now, let’s consider what happens after a most unfortunate occurrence overtakes our city. A besieging king has contrived, perhaps by stratagem, or perhaps by the sheer number and military strength of his warriors, to enter into the city and to take possession of it. He and his cronies have become a ruling class in the city and its environs.

From outside, the city looks little different. As before, some are allowed in, and others not. And the City Wall Society continues to maintain the walls and gates. But inside, there has been a huge change. No longer can individual inhabitants of the city invite in their friends from outside as they wish. The ruling class must approve all such invitations. And no longer is the work of the CWS paid for directly by its members. Instead, the king and his cronies tax the people; then, having taken their (substantial) cut, they pass on to the CWS what it needs to do its work.

Something fundamental and rather nasty has happened here. Property has been replaced by sovereignty.

Let me elucidate. The walls and gates are no longer the property of the City Wall Society. Instead, the king and his ruling class claim ownership of the entire city, including its borders. The property rights of individuals and societies no longer exist. Or, at best, they’re regarded as leases from the king’s “eminent domain.”

And not only have property rights been lost or severely damaged in the transition from a free people’s city to a royal state. But the principle of non-encirclement has been lost, too.

I’ve already written, in no uncertain terms, about what I think of sovereignty [6]. Here, I will add one thing. While boundaries of property are a one way filter, borders of sovereignty are two way. Not only can the king keep out of his city those he dislikes. But he can also forcibly keep in those he chooses to. For example, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has pointed out [7], prior to 1824 the emigration of skilled workers from England was illegal.

When a king and his ruling class take over a city, the fox is in the hen-house. More; the fox controls the hen-house. Now, it’s true that some of the foxes are a bit less evil than others. On rare occasions, the interests of the ruling class can coincide for a while with the interests of the ruled; the UK from around 1830 to 1901 is an example. To live in a state during an empire-building phase isn’t so bad. But for traditionalists to hark back to such a time, and to claim that going back there is the only way forward, is... the nicest word I can find is myopic.

Nationalism

Living under monarchy palls after a while. People start to ask, why should a king and a ruling class have a right to do to us exactly what they want? And why should we put up with it? So they form a society, with the purpose of overthrowing the rulers. They can readily find two binding forces for such a society. First, a shared culture. And second, to a greater or lesser degree, a common ancestry and shared racial characteristics. Thus, a nation is born. It’s at this point that the idea of “the community” comes into being.

Against a dynamic as strong as nationalism, few monarchies can stand. The king may be unseated entirely, or relegated to a ceremonial role. But, importantly, the power of the ruling class as a whole is not broken; nor is its sovereignty destroyed. Indeed, by exploiting for their own gain the new feeling of “we” among the people, the ruling class can actually increase its power. And as to borders, nationalism makes them more important, not less. The xenophobic nation state is up and running.

Many countries, particularly those in which democracy has not yet been tried or in which it has never been any more than a false front, are today still stuck in this nation state phase. Others, most of all those with a history of liberal values, proceed to the next stage of social disintegration; democracy.

Democracy

In the same spirit as Gary Chartier’s three kinds of capitalism [8], I’ll here offer you my four phases of democracy.

Democracy-1 is the honeymoon period. People are happy to have (at least apparently) a say in how their lives are governed. Everything seems fresh and new, and anything seems possible. I noticed, at a recent conference in Bali, that many Asian libertarians seem to be “in love” with democracy in this way. I’ve also noticed that this phase can often result in political frivolities, such as the Beer Lovers’ Party winning 16 parliamentary seats at the 1991 elections in Poland.

But honeymoons don’t last. It isn’t long before political factions emerge, looking to take advantage of the situation. The result is what I call democracy-2. In this phase, two factions each form a group of core supporters, and promote policies designed to favour their own supporters at the expense of everyone else. People who don’t feel a strong attachment to either of the factions will tend to support whichever side seems less evil at the time. And this, as often as not, is the faction currently out of power.

Minor parties can also attract such people; so, they can flourish for a time. But rarely do they get big enough to acquire any chance of real power. Thus, as long as democracy-2 lasts, power tends to swing from one side to the other and back again. The social fabric becomes more and more stretched, and the tone of politics becomes nastier and nastier.

In the UK, democracy-2 was the norm for a period stretching roughly from the 1920s to the 1980s. It was the norm for several decades in the USA, too. Many people, particularly conservatives, seem to think that we still live under that system. But the reality is otherwise. For in the 1980s – I think I can date it to a particular year, 1987, but that’s a long story and one for another day – in most if not all Western democracies, the transition began to democracy-3.

Under democracy-3, the differences between the political factions become greatly reduced. They may sometimes spout different rhetoric; and they may, perhaps, propose slightly different bad laws. But their ideologies are essentially the same. And their policies are directed, not to the benefit of the people, but for the personal benefit of the political class and their hangers-on, and to satisfy the agendas of special interest groups.

So, under democracy-3, society inevitably descends towards where we are today. Everything is politicized. Government has been hi-jacked by special interests, such as environmentalists, warmongers and the pro-EU lobby. And the interests of the political class and their cronies have become diametrically opposed to the interests of good people. The fox is back in control of the hen-house.

Indeed, the fox is sovereign in the hen-house. It’s this very sovereignty that allows the fox to make the bad laws, and the taxes, and the wars, that harm good people so much. I don’t blame the titular monarch, Lizzie Windsor, for this; my guess is that she’s as much a victim as we are.

Living under democracy-3 is even worse than living under monarchy. For under a monarchy – a hereditary one, at least – you might get a good egg like William IV, or a bad one like Mary. But under democracy-3, those that rise to the top are, almost without exception, the worst, the most dishonest and devious, the most politically hip. It’s a system perfectly made for the Blairs, the Browns, the Camerons and their ilk. Moreover, under democracy-3 the political class and their hangers-on are far more numerous than any king and his courtiers. And so, their interferences with, and predations on, the people will become far more stringent and far more pervasive than those of any monarchy.

There’s a fourth phase of democracy; and it’s a terminal social illness. Democracy-4 is the tyranny of a parasite majority. The Greeks suffer it already; for, as I learned recently [9], 67 per cent of Greeks depend on the state for their existence. It’s ironic that Greece, the so called “cradle of democracy,” is also the first exemplar of its destruction. For the productive 33 per cent of Greeks, there are only two options now: exit (while it’s still available), or revolution.

Multiculturalism and Islam

On to multiculturalism. I confess that, before my discussion with Keir, I didn’t grasp the problem of multiculturalism; or, indeed, why so many people think it’s such a big deal. But now, I think I understand that what they find to be a problem is the idea of having several cultures inside one of these things they call “the community.”

Even knowing this, I still don’t really grok the issue. I look, for example, at one of the most successful countries in the world, Switzerland. Switzerland is a multicultural society, and has been for centuries. Where’s the problem with multiculturalism? Or what about the UK itself? The UK was multicultural long before immigration ever became a talking point. I’ll never forget, on my first visit to North Wales, discovering that they spoke a language I couldn’t make head or tail of, and that the pubs were closed on Sundays!

So, I’m coming towards the view that “multiculturalism” is no more than a label, a convenient euphemism, for something else. Those that decry multiculturalism are really, deep down, saying that they hate immigrants. And often, it’s specifically Muslim immigrants that they hate.

Now, those who know me will be aware that I take a very liberal view towards different religions, and towards Muslims in particular. That doesn’t mean that I’m in any way an apologist for Islam. I find Islam even less attractive than Christianity, which I rejected at the age of 16. I’m not comfortable with its central theme, surrender to the will of a god. I abhor its attitude to alcohol. I'm not too convinced by its attitude to women either. (Though Western feminism, it must be said, has tipped that particular balance too far the other way). Nor do I like the fanaticism it can engender, or the suspicion it causes some Muslims to show for non Muslims. Nor do I approve of the propensity of a minority of Muslims to seek to rip people off.

All that said, back in 1983 I spent two and a half months working in a moderate Muslim country, Indonesia. And it was one of the happiest times of my life. I found the people there, for the most part, to be friendly, helpful and tolerant of Westerners' foibles. (The beer wasn’t so bad, either). And, in England, I have known several fine people, who also happened to be Muslims. So, as an upholder of the values of the Enlightenment, I will not condemn Muslims for being Muslims.

Indeed, I see Muslim immigration less as a problem than as an opportunity. Unlike Protestants, Catholics and Jews, Muslims as a whole haven’t yet been through the process of Enlightenment. Isn’t having so many of them among us a good chance to teach them our Enlightenment values?

In reply to John Kersey

At last, I’m ready to address some points John Kersey raises in his talk.

First, individualism. John says that individualism will cause society “to atomize into multiple and ever-changing identity groups.” I disagree. For individualism, simply put, is a way of thinking that focuses on the individual as opposed to the collective. It concentrates on the rights and responsibilities of individuals and their relations towards each other, rather than on nation states and politics, or on received cultures or religions. It’s a bottom up way of thinking, as opposed to a top down one. And in my view, individualism is a vital part of the way out of the bedlam that is democracy-3 and into a liveable future.

Further, I’d say that if you want to build a worthwhile society, if you want to create institutions to endure into the future, you need individualism at the core of your ideas. The best institutions are always built by people working freely and voluntarily with each other to solve the problems they face. I already mentioned the founding of cities, and the development of rights of way. And there are other traditions, that have grown outside the prevailing political order; the lex mercatoria is a prime example. In contrast, top down systems like nation states can’t build anything, except bureaucracies and war machines.

Second, the “Crown” and its role in setting borders. Now, either this “Crown” is a private landowner, or it is not. If it was something other than a private landowner, that would contradict the assumption with which we came in; namely, that land should be privately owned. But if it’s a private landowner, then it can have no rights over its land that other landowners do not. In particular, it should be expected to keep to the principle of non-encirclement. It should not have a right to prohibit people from crossing its land at, say, the Port of Dover or Heathrow Airport. Nor should it have any right to prevent someone from Slovakia (for example) visiting a friend who has invited him to his home in Kent. The conclusion of my argument is clear: if all land is privately owned, then there can be no national borders.

Third, legal versus illegal immigration. Now for me, what is legal conduct and what is illegal conduct must be the same for everyone. You cannot reasonably claim, of twin brothers Mo and Ahmed, neither of whom has ever committed a crime, that it’s legal for one to be in a particular place in the public space, and illegal for the other.

You can, of course, rightly say that Mo is legally on your property (because he’s a plumber, and you have invited him in to fix a leak), while Ahmed, if he was in the same place, would be trespassing. But to say that an immigrant is legal or illegal is to miss the vital difference between property and sovereignty. All valid claims to set boundaries, across which individuals may not pass, arise from property rights. But if you claim a right to stop individuals from crossing a line in some place you don’t own, like the Port of Dover or Heathrow Airport, you’re not basing your claim on property rights. Rather, you’re arrogating to yourself a sovereignty which neither you nor anyone else has any right to.

Fourth, banning the burqa. However much some of John’s audience might agree with this, I find the idea unlibertarian. In my view, it’s wrong to deny people free expression of their religion, as long as it isn’t intended to be provocative. And moreover, if you’re going to ban the burqa, why not also ban the Sikh turban? Jewish headgear? The papal zucchetto? Catholic nuns’ veils? Or crosses on British Airways uniforms?

Fifth and last, cultural dilution. Here, I’m much more sympathetic to John Kersey’s views. He is discomforted by individuals “whose cultural commitment is to values which are profoundly different from our own.” So am I; and I don’t want them around me any more than John does. But the fact is, that most of them aren’t immigrants. Most of them are British born and bred; yet, far from sharing my values, they commit themselves to socialism, environmentalism, welfare statism, political correctness, warmongering or other uncivil ideologies.

John gives an excellent example of what we’re up against, when he mentions Tony Blair and cronies. He describes their motivations as “short-term, materialistic, self-interested greed and tribalism.” My own view of them is far less kind; definitely not fit to be published on the website of an educational charity!

Let me offer a thought experiment here. Imagine that you have both the right and the power to set an exclusion zone of, say, 100 miles radius around your home. (You don’t, in reality, have either; but this is a thought experiment!) You can set a border around it, and so keep out of your exclusion zone anyone you choose to. Furthermore, you can boot out of your domain anyone you want to, and not let them in again. The question is: who would you exclude?

I know what my own answer would be. Blair, Brown and Cameron would, of course, be the first to go. They’d soon be followed by supporters of Agenda 21, the “humans are causing catastrophic global warming” fraud and other green lunacies. Anyone that supports draconian speed limits or other anti-car policies. Anyone that supports re-distribution of wealth from the productive to the lazy, dishonest and politicized. Anyone that supports any policy intended to tell me how to live, or to subject me to indignity, or to constrain my freedom. Any bureaucrat that ever violated my human rights, for example by stealing a penny of my earnings or intercepting one of my e-mails. Anyone that supports aggressive wars in places like Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria. Anyone that tries to rip me off, or treats me uncivilly or dishonestly. Anyone that lies to me, or tries to mislead or to propagandize me, about any matter of importance.

But to economic migrants – wherever they’re from, be it Syria, or Poland, or Iraq, or Greece, or Libya, or even Scotland – what I would say would be along the following lines. “I know of no harm that you’ve done to me. Therefore, I don’t wish any harm to you. So as long as you are, and remain, peaceful, honest and respectful of others’ rights, I’m happy for you to live your lives in my domain.”

Questions for conservatives

Most conservatives and traditionalists are well meaning people. They like to cling to the old ways, because they believe they work. In normal times and places, there’s nothing wrong with this. But the situation today, in the UK, USA and other democracies, is exceptional. The political system, that everybody knows and some are still stupid enough to love, has failed. As it stands, it has only one way to go; down to democracy-4, the rule of the parasite majority. Therefore, radical change is necessary. And that must start with radical change in people’s thinking.

So, my conservative friends, I think you need to ask yourselves some questions. For example: Why do you venerate the state and its sovereignty? Why do you show any respect at all for politicians that make bad laws, taxes and wars? Why do you even pay lip service to a political system that enables your enemies – and mine – to oppress us all? And why do you not only allow, but encourage, the state to prevent people from crossing certain arbitrary lines?

My vision

My vision is of a world in which property rights are fully respected; but there is no sovereignty. In which there is the rule of law and justice; but there are no politicians to make wars, taxes or bad laws. In which there are boundaries, set by individuals or societies around and within their properties; but there are no national borders, or obstructions to movement within the public space. In which everyone can associate with others to form societies or communes – political, religious or of other kinds; but no-one is forced into the company of those he doesn’t like.

Within that vision, forsooth, there might be an English Traditions Society. They might club together to buy a stately home or several, and form their own communes there. So, they can enjoy long summer Sunday afternoons, watching cricket, eating bacon butties, and drinking warm beer from a bar that doesn’t open until 7pm. And they can deny entry to Muslims; though they may make an exception for members of visiting cricket teams. You never know, I might pop in there from time to time for a pint or two, and to hear how my traditionalist friends are doing.

The vision I’m describing is founded on two ideas. The first consists, broadly, of Enlightenment values, with the rule of law and justice at the centre. The second is the state of nature. That is the condition which John Locke describes as [10]: “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.”

Locke also says, of the individual under the law of Nature [11]: “He and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society distinct from all other creatures. And were it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any other, no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and associate into lesser combinations.” Corrupt, vicious, degenerate; these words could almost have been invented to describe the Blairs, Browns and Camerons of today.

There’s a world-wide Civilization to be built out there – a new “great and natural community” of civil people. Those like me, who are doing what we can to bring it about, need as much help as we can get. Do conservatives and traditionalists want to join in?

---

[1] http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2013/08/01/in-defence-of-open-borders/

[2] http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/09/13/a-propertarian-speaks-on-the-immigration-crisis/
[3] http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/tactn/tactn030.pdf
[4] http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/03/10/nation-state-and-culture-an-individual-view/
[5] http://coss.fsu.edu/d5/economics/sites/coss.fsu.edu.economics/files/users/bbenson/roads_public.pdf
[6] http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/06/20/the-unholy-trinity-collectivism-sovereignty-corruption/
[7] https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration/
[8] https://c4ss.org/content/1738
[9] https://mises.org/library/greece-reliance-public-funds-central-problem
[10] Second Treatise of Government, §4.
[11] Second Treatise of Government, §128.

Why Should We Tolerate Bad Government?

(From the archives - January 9th, 2006)

If you hired a private security firm to protect your possessions, and they failed to do what they had promised, what would you do? And what if that security firm demanded huge and ever increasing amounts, which they used for purposes that brought no nett benefit to you?

Would you terminate the contract? Would you look for another firm you could trust better? Would you tell your friends about their misconduct? Would you warn people not to deal with them? Or would you just continue paying up, year after year after year, until they have drained you dry?

Suppose, again, that you hired a private security firm to defend you and your freedoms against violent aggressors. Suppose, then, that a violent aggression happened, that took many lives. Suppose, too, that the security firm had culpably failed to act on the warning signals before the attack. And perhaps even, by their deeds, had encouraged the attack?

Would you sue them for negligence? Would you vow to make sure that they are never again allowed to peddle their less-than-worthless wares? Or would you accept them putting more and more restrictions on you, in the name of protecting you against future attacks? Would you accept them killing the very freedoms you had hired them to defend?

If you hired a security firm to protect you, and they did lots of things that weren't in the contract, what would you do? Particularly if a lot of what they did was hostile to you. Like, re-distributing your earned wealth to others? Trying to ruin your career? Draining the economy? Pressing for any busybody agenda that might bring them an excuse for more power over you? Hemming you in with whatever bad regulations they decided to dream up, often supported by arbitrary limits to make it easier to catch you out? Taking away your rights to enjoy the pleasures you have earned? Putting obstacles in the way of your progress? Spying on you? Stopping and searching you on a whim? Treating you like an object or a number, instead of as a human being?

What if, on top of all that, they did things that no civilized human being would ever do – like murdering innocent people, and covering up what had happened? What if they acted like the very criminals they were supposed to be protecting you against?

And what if they tried to excuse their actions with lies and rationalizations? What if they took noble-sounding ideals – like health, safety, security, the environment, fighting poverty – and set them up as idols, fraudulently making them out to be higher causes that overrode your rights as a human being? What if they tried to scare you, or to manipulate you through propaganda, into believing that what they were doing to you was for your own good?

Would you – beyond suing them for damages, of course – press for harsh criminal penalties against them? Would you censure them for their uncivilized acts? Would you reject their lies and dishonesties, and encourage others to do likewise? Or would you stay silent, and accept their felonies, their ruses and their excuses?

If you hired a security firm to defend you, and they tried to arrogate to themselves rights to do things they denied to you – for example, that their operatives may carry guns, but you may not – what would you do?

Would you point out that you are their subscriber, not their subject? That they are supposed to be your servants, not your masters? Would you make it clear that the only right you have delegated to them is a part of your right of self-defence? Or would you kow-tow to them as if they were a superior species to you, and had rights to do things you didn't?

If you hired a security firm to defend you, and they claimed a right to make armed assaults on other security firms and their subscribers, what would you do?

Would you tell them, in no uncertain terms, to concentrate solely on what they are supposed to be doing – defending you and your fellow subscribers? Or would you encourage and support their assaults, with the deaths and maimings of innocent people they would cause?

If all the security firms in your area got together and formed one huge, lawless cartel, how would you view them? If they purported to compete and to offer you a choice, but in reality were all just part of the same cartel, offering no choice at all, what would you do?

Would you reject their charades? Would you refuse to take part in any scheme that gave them an illusion of legitimacy? Or would you dutifully express a preference for one or another of them? Would you put it on the record that you are satisfied with what the cartel have done and are doing to you? Would you signal your approval of their aggressions, thefts and frauds against innocent people? And would you ask for more of the same?

Do not today's political governments do all these bad things to us? You bet they do. And more. So, I make explicit the question: Why should we tolerate bad government? And I give you my answer. We shouldn't.

More generally, why should we tolerate bad politics? Why should we tolerate a system that is so corrupt, that it cannot produce any government that is anything other than bad? A system that, far from rewarding bullies, thieves and fraudsters with the criminal punishment they deserve, elevates them to positions of power? A system that, far from delivering to human beings the peace, freedom, prosperity and justice we deserve, instead fans wars and conflicts, harasses us, impoverishes us and treats us as less than human?

And I give you my answer again: We shouldn't.

Ah, you may say, I agree with you. But what can we do about it? How do we change things, so governments work for good people, not against us?

For today, I leave answering that question, dear reader, as an exercise for you.

But What If It Isn't True?

(I found this one in the Rhymer's archives. It comes from June 2009 - pre-Climategate. But, with a certain gab-fest coming up in Paris, it's very relevant today.)

They tell us there’s global warming,
They tell us that we’re to blame.
They tell us to cut emissions,
They want us to give up wealth.
But, power is habit-forming,
And lies are a route to fame.
So, why should we trust Green visions?
They don’t care about our health.

We all have already suffered,
Bad green laws, and taxes too.
They’re taking away our birthright!
They don’t want us to be free.
Yet one thought comes through, unbuffered:
“But what if it isn’t true?”
Of course it ain’t. So, be forthright,
And speak truth and honesty.

How to Identify the Humanity Haters

(Another one from the archives - October 4th, 2005. Almost exactly 10 years ago.)

Sixty-six and some million years ago, dinosaurs ruled the planet. Some of them, like tyrannosaurs, were big and violent. Others were big, slow-moving herbivores. Whichever way, they had dominion over the Earth.

Then came a change. Whether it was a change in the global climate, or an asteroid hit, or something else, we do not know. But the dinosaurs died out. And smaller, more dynamic species suddenly found the world more encouraging. So they began to thrive.

Today, I think, we are in a weirdly similar situation. Big political states, with their institutional violence, theft and fraud, rule the world. Big vested interests, quangos, pressure groups and mass media have power too. Meanwhile, big, staid companies lobby for favours. The small – the individual and the small company – are not respected at all. Today's political system is not helpful or encouraging to us human beings.

But there is change in the air. There's a Renaissance coming. Whether it will happen by change in the mental climate, or by some event which moves large numbers of people suddenly to understand what is going on, or some other way, I do not know. But…

Today, I'm going to identify the dinosaurs. But no, that's not quite accurate. I'm going to identify the humanity haters, that today form the backbones of the tyrannosaur states and other big dinosaur organizations. And I'm going to contrast them with the good guys.

To do that, I must begin with some very general comments about how human beings should relate to each other. First, it is wrong to be malicious, aggressive or dishonest towards others. This is reflected in the institution we call criminal law. Those that maliciously cause harm, or use aggression or fraud against civilized people, deserve not only to be made to compensate their victims, but to suffer punishment in addition.

Second, if we damage others through negligence or irresponsibility, we have an obligation to compensate them. This is what civil law is about. It is about restitution for damage or for nuisances.

Third, we should trade with others. We should offer what we can to others, as long as they provide us with what we see as equivalent value in return. There's a long-standing human institution which supports this, too. It's called the free market.

Fourth, we should try to create as much value as we can. In particular, we must make every possible effort to put in more than we take out. There's supposed to be a human institution to support this as well. It's the system by which individuals' rewards, over the long run, are in proportion to how much good they do. An imperfect version of it used to be called laissez-faire capitalism.

Fifth and last, we should be benevolent towards our fellows – that is to say, those who meet their obligations towards us. We should respect them as individuals. We should respect their rights. We should never intentionally let ourselves become a drain on them. And we should do what we can to help our fellows if they are in need through no fault of their own.

Civilized human beings measure up to these basic human obligations, or at least strive to do so. There are, however some that fail to make the effort to meet these obligations. They may, for example, fail even to try to be productive or constructive. They may be a drain on or a nuisance to us. They may violate our human rights. They may be aggressive, malicious or dishonest. Or they may want to pervert law and justice to their own ends. These are not our fellows; they are our enemies. They are humanity haters.

Within the tyrannosaur states and the large dinosaur organizations, you can find many different subspecies of humanity haters. I will describe some of them for you.

First on the list are the Bullies. If you think of the humanity haters as like a soccer team, then the Bullies are the strikers. I don't need to tell you what Bullies do; look in the dictionary. But it's worth noting that there are two types of Bullies, active and passive. The Bully (Active) is the shock troop, while the Bully (Passive) helps him and eggs him on.

Behind the striking pair, there is the Killjoy. I don't need to say much about what Killjoys do, either. But there's something definitely wrong with those that want to deny others their earned pleasures.

Playing a little deeper, there is the Guilt-tripper. Guilt-trippers are those that try to make us feel guilty for just about anything. If we drive to work rather than walking or taking public transport, for example, or if we don't give lots of money to charity. You have to wonder, though, why are Guilt-trippers so obsessed with guilt? What are they hiding?

Predominantly on the right side of the midfield, is the Meddler. Meddlers like to force us to live the way they want us to, without regard for our individuality. They love to snoop, to intrude, to interfere, to restrict. Regulation for regulation's sake is their favourite pursuit.

Predominantly on the left is the Envier. Enviers hate success, most of all when it has been honestly earned. They hate excellence. And they share the Killjoys' hatred of anything fun.

Behind the Meddler is the Waster. Wasters like huge projects that consume enormous amounts of our resources, without delivering us corresponding benefits, or indeed any benefits at all. They just love wasting our wealth, particularly when some of it finds its way to them.

On the other flank is the Thief. What Thieves love to do is steal and re-distribute our wealth, to finance the schemes of the Bullies, Enviers, Wasters and the other humanity haters.

In central defence are the Obstructor and the Stop-the-Worlder. Obstructors love to put obstacles in people's way, to make our lives more difficult than they need be. Stop-the-Worlders are even more extreme. They hate change. They hate dynamism. They hate progress. The enviro movement, for example, is full of Stop-the-Worlders.

Last, I introduce their captain and goalkeeper – the Rationalizer. All humanity haters are, to some extent, Rationalizers. All mainstream politicians, in particular, are Rationalizers. They claim to care about us; they try to avoid openly showing their hatred for us. They try to make out that whatever it is they are doing to us is for a good cause. For example, health, safety, security, sustainability, improving the environment, fighting crime, helping the needy, eliminating poverty.

But once you start to see these rationalizations for what they are, it becomes increasingly easy to reject them. When you hear a policy proposed that is claimed to be a benefit to people, ask yourself two questions. One, is this an objective benefit to me as an individual? And two, is it a benefit to honest, productive, civilized human beings in general? If the answer to either question is No, you have caught a Rationalizer in the act. You have identified a humanity hater.

And, if you wonder why just about everything today's political governments do seems to be, as one wag put it, "spending a lot of our money while tightening the screws of tyranny a little bit further,” you need wonder no longer. It's because they're a bunch of wasters and bullies. And rationalizers too, of course.

Ask yourself: Who needs the humanity haters? Who needs bullies? Who needs killjoys or guilt-trippers? Who needs meddlers, enviers, wasters, thieves, obstructors or stop-the-worlders? Who needs rationalizers? Why don't we just dump the dinosaurs? Why don't we just reject and ostracize those that don't even try to meet basic human standards like peacefulness, honesty, economic productivity and respect for justice and human rights?

Well, one problem is that a lot of people are still fooled by their rationalizations. So we still have work to do before we can simply shrug them off our shoulders. We have to persuade good people – eventually, very many good people – to see the humanity haters for what they are.

Another problem is that those that hate us have guns, and we don't. But that probably will not matter. Tyrannosaurs had lots of teeth; but that didn't help them. Nor, I believe, can weapons ensure the survival of the tyrannosaur state or the other dinosaurs that depend on it. A dynamic as big as what is happening today – in essence, a re-evaluation of the human condition, the rise of a bottom-up, individualist view of life in opposition to the old top-down, collectivist view – will not be deflected by a few million bullies or by their bullets.

In the meantime, let's do what we can to amuse. In describing the humanity haters, I used the analogy of a soccer team. So let's see what kind of team we could put up against them.

We might have the Lover of Honesty, to outwit the rationalizer. The Lover of Peace and our captain, the Lover of Justice, to defend against the bullies. The Lover of Freedom to tackle the meddler. The Lover of Happiness to mark the killjoy. The Lover of Dynamism and the Lover of Progress, to run at the obstructor and the stop-the-worlder. The Lover of Success, to repel the envier. The Lover of Earned Prosperity, to neutralize the thief. The Lover of Self-esteem to dispossess the guilt-tripper. And the Lover of Competence to run rings round the waster.

I think that might be quite a game of football.

A Conquest

The Rhymer once wrote a sonnet about a woman he loved. Ah, those were the days. But here it is.

I run my hands along her curves. I feel
A subtle sinuosity; complex, but real.
I put my arms around her waist, and hold
A warm, sweet, beautiful sixteen-year-old.
I hold her tight; I take a comfy rest,
As I enjoy the softness of her breast.
I hold her tighter; my nose finds afresh
The subtle perfume of young female flesh.
Next, my desire is for the perfect kiss;
Her lips are quite impossible to miss.
I lure her to my car’s back seat; that done,
We ride to a hotel, and have some fun.
But afterwards, I think: Why was I blind?
I didn’t bother to explore her mind.

How to Re-claim the Law

(From the archives - March 30th, 2005)

The end of law, wrote John Locke, is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.

Bad laws, said Edmund Burke a century later, are the worst sort of tyranny.

The villains that masquerade as government in Britain today do not seem to have learned from either of these sages. For they pile on us bad law after bad law. Their laws are so many and complicated that no-one can possibly know them all, let alone obey them all. In a legislative frenzy, they have invented hundreds of new "crimes.” They hem us about with ever more arbitrary regulations. They persecute whoever is the politically incorrect flavour of the month, for example fox-hunters, smokers or car drivers. They give police more and more powers to interfere in our lives. They want to force on us ID cards and DNA tests. And they prescribe severe fines and penalties for anyone who steps even slightly out of line.

The philosophy of today's laws seems to be that we are too weak and too wanton to govern our own lives. That we are not fit to take responsibility for our actions. That we need to be protected against our own foibles. That we need to be ordered about at every turn.

That we are also to be held strictly liable for any damage (real or presumed) we might be accused of causing, even if we are not in any way malicious, irresponsible or negligent. That it doesn't matter how much cost laws impose on us. And that it's OK for law makers and enforcers to treat innocent people as if we were criminals.

Worse yet is what these villains have done and are doing to law in the wider sense. They undermine the presumption of innocence. They threaten traditional safeguards like jury trial and double jeopardy. They agitate for indefinite detention or house arrest without trial. They claim such measures would only be used against terrorists, but who but a fool would believe them?

Meanwhile, they not only continue but expand their favourite pastime of "legally" draining us of our earned wealth. So putting all of us, however much we honestly earn, in danger of being left destitute in our old age. Much of what they take, they waste. And some they actively use against us. They use our own earned wealth as fuel for the leviathan through which they rule over us and try to impose their wills on us. Preserving and enlarging freedom? Pull the other one.

We need to re-claim the law. We need to make law and government work for good people, not against us. How might we do that? I invite you to consider how, when the lovers of tyranny have been removed from power, we might go about cutting law down to its proper size and function. I am thinking, here, in the context of English law. But I suspect that many of the reforms I suggest will have their counterparts in other systems of law.

The first step in re-claiming the law, I think, must be a negative one. That is, to quickly un-do the worst excesses of what the politicians and their cronies have done to us. I can see no better way to do this than simply to choose a past date, all laws made after which are to be repealed with immediate effect. If I were asked to pick such a date, I would suggest 1st April 1992. That would eliminate all laws made by New Labour, and all laws made by the Tories in their last term of office up to 1997.

I am well aware that this would mean – among much else – tearing up the European constitution and the Kyoto protocol, along with hundreds or thousands of European directives. But so what? They are political frauds. Couldn't the inhabitants of England survive – indeed, prosper – without them? It is law we need, not politics.

The second step in re-claiming the law is a specialist one. It is to distil the centuries of experience, which underlie English law, into a new, simplified law code. How this might be done is a good question. We might entrust the task to a single very eminent professor of law. Or to a committee of such greybeards. Or to several individuals or teams, working in free competition to produce the best code of law possible.

Without pre-judging this question, I think I can give some pointers as to what that law-book might be like.

First, how big will it be? I think it must be small. I suggest 100 pages at the maximum – under 40,000 words. So that anyone who wants to can carry a copy of it around, and refer to it whenever they feel the need.

Second, what will it contain? I think it will have two main parts. One on basic or non-criminal law, one on criminal law. Both will be concerned with principles, rather than with institutions.

The first part will set a framework for the resolution of disputes, and for mechanisms to compensate people who have been treated unreasonably. It will cover personal-law matters, like wills and marriages. It will include the essence of commercial and contract law, and of property law. It will cover torts, and restitution for objective damage caused, whether physical, financial, to the lifestyle or to the reputation.

I think it will also return to centre stage the idea of the reasonable man (and woman). It will reject strict liability. No-one will be liable to compensate unless they have been, in some way, irresponsible, negligent or malicious. Accidents, of course, will happen; but provided those involved have behaved reasonably, compensation for accidents will be a matter for insurance, not for law.

The criminal-law part, I expect, will begin with a list and description of fundamental crimes. Among such crimes might be: Murder. Assault, aggressive violence. Invasion of the home. Invasion of privacy. Theft, in all its forms. Malicious damage to property. Malicious obstruction. Fraud, malicious deception. Bullying or threatening behaviour. Molesting children. Knowingly aiding and abetting others' crimes.

All criminal acts – with two exceptions I will come to – will have something in common. That is to say, crime requires a mental state as well as an action. Criminal law will take account of the centuries-old idea of mens rea; no-one is guilty unless his mind is guilty. Otherwise put, no act can be a crime unless it is done with malicious intent, or such recklessness that a reasonable person would not contemplate doing it.

There are, I think, two exceptions, which lie in the borderland between non-criminal and criminal law. One is manslaughter. Because it does not involve mens rea, manslaughter should not strictly be a crime. However, because of the severity of its effects, traditional wisdom – rightly, I think – demands that it should be treated as if it were a crime.

The second exception is contempt of court, or failure to observe a judgement. This provides the escalation procedure, from penalties based on restitution, to criminal penalties, which may include punishment as well as restitution.

The law-book will not lay down specific penalties for specific offences. That, after all, is one of the things judges are for. However, it will set out the principle that the punishment for crime must always, taking account of the circumstances, be in proportion to the crime.

It will also specify the grounds on which criminal judgements should be based. For example, that a suspect must be presumed innocent until proved guilty. That any accusation must be tried without undue delay. That the accused is entitled to a full and fair hearing. That all judgements must be objective and impartial. That individuals may only be penalized if they are culpable beyond reasonable doubt. That it is better that ten guilty go free, than that one innocent is wrongly punished.

The third step is to correct the institutions, which implement the rule of law. I will base my suggestions on the Enlightenment model of government, in which powers are separated into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.

Of course, political government today has more branches than just the Enlightenment ones. There is the Uncompetitive, providing generally low-quality services that aren't what we want. There is the Politically Corrective (also known as the Meddle Class), providing cushy bureaucrat jobs for those that like to use good-sounding ideals, like racial equality or health and safety, to interfere in people's lives – from a height. And there is the Kleptocracy, that drains us of our wealth to keep the political shebang going. Since none of these branches has anything to do with the kind of law that benefits good people, I will only say; the Uncompetitive has got to get competitive, and the others have got to go. So I will concentrate on the three valid branches of government: judiciary, executive, legislative.

The judiciary are today, so it appears, the least corrupt of the three. Therefore, they will suffer the least pruning. Indeed, they will be more important under the new system than the old. Nevertheless, any judge that makes judgements on grounds of political policy, rather than objective justice, must go. No more Judge Jeffreys!

The executive – enforcers of law, including the police – are another matter. While the best of them do a reasonable job, there are too many that seem to like enforcing bad laws. Too many of them like to pounce on anyone who is or might be breaking some arbitrary regulation that wasn't there just a few years ago. Those that were tasked with preserving and enlarging freedom, but failed in that task, will be pruned as they deserve.

It is, however, in the legislative that the worst problems lie. Indeed, the very existence of the Uncompetitive, the Meddle Class and the Kleptocracy is all the fault of the legislative, and those that greased their palms.

It is tempting to think that we might be able to get away without having lawmakers at all; that our law-book could suffice for ever. I think, though, that this view is short-sighted. The law has to be able to evolve to meet new situations.

But, to prevent today's legislative anarchy being repeated, the powers of the legislature must be strongly circumscribed. Except in clear case of emergency, I think meetings of the legislature should be restricted to – at maximum – two weeks each year. And that no-one should be allowed to be a member for more than – say – five years. By abolishing career politics, I think these two small changes alone would bring enormous benefits.

Here are some of the rules I think lawmakers of the future should be made to keep to. One, no law may be made with intent to harm any individual or group, or to treat anyone worse than they treat others. Two, no law may demean people by taking away their right to make and be responsible for their own decisions. Three, any proposed law must be shown to have benefits outweighing its costs, before it can come into force. These benefits must be objectively measurable. Four, every new law must be reviewed at least every year, to check that the benefits are exceeding the costs. And any law failing this test must be struck down immediately. Five, the law-book must never exceed 100 pages or 40,000 words. If lawmakers want to bring in a new law, and the law-book is full, they must take out an old one to make room for it.

Furthermore, I can see no reason to do away with traditions when there is nothing obviously better to replace them. Therefore, jury trial should be retained. If a case is too complicated for a jury to understand, it should not be brought. The double jeopardy rule, too, should stand.

And government must be seen for what it is – at best, a necessary evil. Government must never again be allowed to become a drain on, or a danger to, good people. It must never again violate any individual's fundamental rights, such as liberty or property, except in punishment for a crime of which that individual has been convicted, or to hold an individual for a short period prior to trial. (And, if they are found not guilty, they should be compensated for what was done to them). So safeguards against wrongful arrest, and provisions for compensating innocent people who suffer harm at the hands of government, should not be emasculated, but strengthened.

The fourth and final step in re-claiming the law is to bring justice to those concerned. To compensate those who have been harmed by bad laws, and to punish, with appropriate severity, those that have perverted the law.

All government officials that ever bullied innocent human beings must make redress to their victims. And those that stole our earned wealth must be brought to account. The wealth which was stolen, and wasted or used against us, must be repaid, together with interest and damages, to its rightful owners – those who fairly, honestly earned it.

What of those that perverted the law? Edmund Burke was right when he said that bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. Those that lobbied for bad laws, those that polluted the mental climate to try to drum up support for bad laws, and those that made bad laws, are far worse than mere criminals. And when enough good people come to realize this – and that time, I think, is not so far off now – there will be quite a backlash.

When the Revolution (or is it the Renaissance?) comes, I don't think the prospects are going to be too rosy for those with a political record.