A Journey to the Sea of Azov

I’ve just returned home from a journey. It was one of the best journeys of my life. Planes, trains and automobiles carried me to the end of Europe; and back. Except for the last mile. But that’s a story in itself.

I had been invited to Ukraine by Glenn Cripe, who runs the Language of Liberty Institute. What we do is hold “camps,” usually about five days long, to which students (mainly at undergraduate level) come. And at which teachers like me put forward the ideas of liberty, not only as expressed by philosophers of the past, but also we see it ourselves. We enjoy the company of young people, our liberty nephews and nieces. And everything is (supposed to be) in English, the language of liberty.

This was my fourth visit to Ukraine inside 18 months, all for the same purpose. This time we were going to a place called Strilkove, south of Genichesk, on the Arabat Spit which forms the beach on the west side of the Sea of Azov. Strilkove is about 15km from the de facto Crimean border with Russia. It’s about as far south as you can go, and still be in Ukraine. It has little tourist infrastructure yet. But it’s experiencing a boom right now, because many Ukrainian people who would normally have gone to the (much more beautiful and developed) Crimea don’t want to suffer the hassle of crossing the border.

I’ll backtrack. I flew to Kiev (on Lufthansa, these days my favourite airline). I stayed one night there, and spent the day walking around the city. I was footsore when I reached the station and boarded the 21:44 train to Genichesk. I had a berth in a first class sleeper; but this was Soviet first class. It was full, too. As compartment mate, I had a very nice Ukrainian woman a few years younger than myself, who spoke a little English. There’s no gender separation among passengers in Ukrainian sleeper trains!

It was a 15 hour journey to Genichesk; I’d guess almost 1,000 kilometres. The bed was narrow, and the coach had no springs to speak of. That said, the cost of that trip one way was about the same as a standard class peak time return trip to London from my home in Surrey.

It was about 35km from Genichesk to our motel, piloted by a crazy driver. It’s almost the first house in the village, and the paved road ends right outside. (With a foot deep hole to trap drivers who fail to divert!). Our hosts were Muslims, members of the Crimean Tatar minority. As were the local organizers, who had chosen to leave Crimea and move to Ukraine after the “authorities” raided their flat.

We had only 14 full time students, a smaller group than usual. One Crimean Tatar, eleven other Ukrainians, and two from Poland. (A couple of others breezed in and out). There were three faculty members: Glenn, myself and Jacek from Poland. We had guest speakers too: Zarema the local organizer, Miriam from the Friedrich Naumann foundation (the major sponsor of the camp), Kamil the Polish entrepreneur, and a Ukrainian liberal politician called Oleksandr, who gave a very interesting workshop. (In Ukrainian not in English, unfortunately).

But in this group, there were four exceptional students. And at least two, in my estimation, moved in a (classical) liberal direction during the camp.

The Crimean Tatar cuisine at the motel was excellent. As one who abhors most sauces, I like food to taste as it looks. A tomato, for example, should taste like a tomato, not be adulterated by some nondescript, alien dressing. These tomatoes tasted as they should! As did the broth, the vegetables, the meat, the pastries, and the apples from the motel’s own orchard. What sauces they did use, were subtle. And all was washed down by many, many cups of black tea.

Although I was there to teach, I learned a lot too. I developed a fellow feeling for Crimean Tatars. They are under 20 per cent of the population in their supposed homeland, so even without the Russians, “democracy” is a big no-no for them. I looked at their history, and I gagged. Several times. I wonder what English nationalists would think of their cause?

Now to some memorable moments outside the classroom. On the second evening, one of the students found near the beach an all but new born puppy, abandoned by its mother. Having heard my presentation on John Locke earlier in the day, he christened it “John Locke,” and brought it to the motel. Regrettably, it was later found to be a female. But she was thriving when I left.

Ah, and then there was the walk to the store for beer. Only about eight minutes along a sandy track beside the road, but hard work. And even harder work on the way back, under the load of 2.5 litre bottles of Ukrainian lager that cost about £1-30 each.

Then there was the night when five cows invaded the motel garden. On that same night, I saw the stars clearer than I’ve ever seen them before. And there were huge lightning storms away to the south-west – exactly the direction from which the Russians would have been firing, if either side’s idiot politicians had been stupid enough to start a war.

To the journey back. The train was better sprung this time, but my companion was male and spoke no English. I was dumped at Kiev station at 5am. Kiev is a 24 hour city, but not the area around the station (!) I had a leisurely morning, and a superb lunch, before flying back to London. It had been my best trip for many years.

...until I got home. I took the coach to Woking, and the train from there. Arriving at my local station, there were no taxis. I couldn’t haul my bags up the hill, so I left them in the station, walked home and got out the car. I then had a blarney with the ticket operative, who had removed my bags to a storeroom as a “security risk.” I gave him Edmund Burke’s “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny,” and he seemed to understand, sort of.

It’s an interesting world, no?

The dirty dozen: Twelve ways to pollute the mental climate

(Neil's Note: This one is radical. And hot off the press, too.)

Here are a dozen methods used by today’s ruling élites and their cronies to pollute, for their own ends, the climate of thought among human beings. There may be many more.

1. They have subverted the presumption that society exists for the sake of the individuals in it. They have perverted it into an idea that individuals exist for the sake of some “nation,” “state,” “society” or “community” they may not even feel a part of.
   

2. They have perverted religious belief into institutionalized conformity and mumbo-jumbo.
   

3. They have perverted law into bad laws. They have perverted rules of good conduct natural to human beings, into a system that enables a ruling élite to make “laws” to control others.
   

4. They have subverted the presumption that individuals are responsible for the consequences to others of their own willed or reckless conduct. They have perverted it into an idea that those in power aren’t responsible for the effects of what they do.
   

5. They have perverted the presumption of individual, objective justice – that individuals should be treated, over the long run and in the round, as they treat others – into the idea that “justice” is whatever the ruling élites want it to be.
   

6. They have perverted the notion of equality away from moral equality, the foundation of the rule of law, and towards equality of outcome, without regard to what individuals deserve. Except for the ruling élites and their cronies of course, who simply take and enjoy the spoils of taxation.
   

7. They have subverted the ideal of charity for the poor. They have turned it into a centrally controlled, politicized system which not only steals from productive people what they justly earn, but also hauls the recipients down into dependency.
   

8. They have subverted the presumption that those aggrieved by how government treats them have the right to withdraw their support from it, just like any other supplier they are unhappy with. They have perverted it into something called “democracy,” that offers people a false sense of being consulted in decision making, while giving a veneer of “legitimacy” to the bad policies of the ruling élites.
   

9. They have subverted real human rights like property, privacy and freedom of speech. They have perverted them into pseudo “rights” like “free” education, a “clean environment” and a “right” not to be offended.
   

10. They have subverted the right of free movement, subject to property rights but without regard to arbitrary political boundaries. They have turned it into centrally controlled, politicized “immigration policy,” with negative long term effects for all.
    

11. They have perverted the rights to self-defence and mutual defence into a “right” for agents of the ruling élites to commit aggressions against innocent people.
    

12. They have perverted the climate of truthfulness, honesty, integrity and openness, which is natural for human beings, and necessary for us to flourish. They have polluted it with lies, broken promises, deceptions and corruption, and with attacks on those who stand up for truth and honesty.
    

A Cry of Rage and Pain

Now some of the dust has settled after the Brexit vote, I thought it might be useful to take a look at who voted which way, and why what happened might have happened.

I got from the BBC’s website the data on votes cast in each borough, and sorted them by percentage of votes cast for Remain and for Leave. Having decided I was only interested in the results in England and Wales, not in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar, I then looked at the top 25 on each side within England and Wales.

Of the 25 boroughs with the highest percentages for Remain, 18 were London boroughs. The remaining seven were Cambridge (8), Oxford (10), Brighton and Hove (16), St. Albans (19), Bristol (21), Manchester (24) and South Cambridgeshire (25). (The last of these is the hinterland of Cambridge, enclosing the city on all sides).

With the possible exceptions of Manchester and St. Albans, all these are strongholds of modern Progressivism. They do very nicely out of the current political arrangements and agendas, thank you. In particular, they are among the “greenest” places in the country. Indeed, if you asked me to name the five most car-unfriendly cities I’ve visited in England and Wales, I’d give you London, Oxford, Cambridge, Brighton and Bristol.

So on the Remain side, the picture looks quite simple. The city slickers and big businessmen that benefit financially from the current set-up, and the supporters of big government and the green agenda, also support the EU. The latte-sipping, Grauniad-reading, political-correctness-loving, humanity-hating classes that think they’re the only people educated enough to be allowed to have opinions on anything, are Remainers to the core.

On the other side, it’s much more complicated. The areas with the strongest Leave votes were mostly in a few parts of the country – Essex, Lincolnshire and the industrial Midlands and North. But the reasons for that support seem to vary from place to place.

Some will tell you the Leave vote was all about immigration. It’s true that in the borough with the highest Leave percentage of all, Boston (Lincolnshire), immigrants from the EU are the major issue of the day. And quite probably this was also the cause of the high Leave vote in neighbouring South Holland (2).

It seems that in Castle Point (3) and Thurrock (4), both in Essex, the local political hot potato is encroachment on the Green Belt; which, of course, is an indirect effect of large scale immigration. This may well also have been a cause in Havering (12) and Basildon (18). And in Harlow (20) the problem is closely related; there’s a long running battle between those who wish to expand the town northwards and those who don’t.

But in Great Yarmouth (5), the key issue is a quite different one; the destruction of their fishing industry, of which quotas set by the EU was a major cause. This may be a factor also in North East Lincolnshire (10), which includes Grimsby. In Fenland (6), it looks different again; becoming a dormitory area for an expanding Cambridge seems to be the worry.

In Mansfield (7) and Bolsover (8), the issues seem to be the decline, over several decades, of mining and other industries in the area, and the resulting unemployment. This may well also have been the problem in Ashfield (11), Hartlepool (13), Stoke-on-Trent (15), Barnsley (19) and Hull (25).

Doncaster (16), in which about 8 per cent of the population are not white British, has also suffered the decline of its mining industry, and there have been serious troubles in local government stretching back almost 20 years. Rotherham (21), with a similar ethnic composition to Doncaster, has become a by-word for mismanagement and turning a blind eye to criminal abuses. Walsall (22), also with a similar demographic, has been described as among the most deprived districts in England. And Dudley (24) has suffered both racial tensions and severe economic decline.

It’s notable that many of these areas have had huge amounts of tax money poured into them in recent years for “regeneration” schemes. Too late, I suspect, to change the minds of the people who experienced the degeneration.

In some cases it’s hard for a non-local to fathom the reasons for the large Leave votes. In East Lindsey (9) it may have been annoyance at over-zealous charging by the local council for green waste. Tendring (14) is a UKIP stronghold, and there have also been recent troubles in their local politics.

But I confess that I’ve no idea why 68.9% of those who turned out voted Leave in Cannock Chase (17), unless it’s because Walsall is next door. Or why 67.8% voted Leave in Bassetlaw (23).

It seems plain to me that this Leave vote isn’t about one single issue. Immigration was a factor in Boston. I’m not sure how much of a factor it was in Doncaster, Rotherham, Walsall or Dudley. But in those cases, the immigrants concerned aren’t from the EU. So the meme we’ve been bombarded with, that Leave voters are all just racists who hate immigrants, doesn’t hold water for me.

Long term economic decline is a common theme in many of the places with the largest Leave votes. And this decline has taken place over 40 years or so, very much the same period during which Britain has been a member of the EU. Correlation, of course, does not prove causation; but many people will have made the link in their minds. I suspect that economic decline, rather than immigration, is the primary reason for so many people voting Leave.

In fact, it goes further than that. I’m not even sure that it’s all that much about the EU. What I think this Leave vote actually represents is a cry of rage and pain. It is coming from people who feel that for years and decades they have not been cared about or listened to by those in power. That’s why more older people voted Leave than younger ones; they have been suffering far longer.

My own thought processes leading up to the vote may be of some interest. I make no secret of the fact that I despise all politicians and all politics. For me, the only good parliament is a hung parliament – hung at Tyburn, that is. I have vowed never again to vote for any politician. And before the referendum, it had been 29 years since I last voted.

As to the European project, objectively, it has had positives and negatives. Personally, I’m in favour of free movement of people; I would have welcomed Schengen if I had had a chance to enjoy it. And, with some reservations, I approve of the European Convention on Human Rights, which New Labour incorporated into British law as the Human Rights Act. (It was the only good thing they ever did). The European Court of Human Rights, also, has made some right decisions.

On the other side, the endless torrent of regulations about things like bananas and light bulbs has for years been extremely tiresome. And it’s becoming increasingly obvious, to all who can see, that the EU and the eurozone are economically unsustainable. The Greeks nearly pulled it all down a couple of years ago. And when the EU does come down, it will end in tears. Big time. I don’t want to be there when the bomb goes off, thank you very much. That was my first reason for deciding to vote Leave.

The second issue was that the European project was mis-sold to me and to all of us. When the 1975 referendum took place, “Europe” was the EEC (though many preferred to call it the Common Market). The EEC, for me, was generally a good thing. It enabled me, for example, to live and work in Holland for three years in the late 1970s. But about 1990, “Europe” ceased to be an economic construct, and morphed into a political one. That was when I lost all confidence in the European project. What has happened since has only confirmed my apprehensions.

My third reason was Cameron using millions in tax money, stolen from me and others, to send to every household in the land a booklet of propaganda for the Remain side. This was the “final straw” which caused me to make the decision to vote Leave.

These were my three rational reasons. But I had a fourth, more emotional reason. As I wrote a few days before the referendum: “It’s the first time in my 63 years living in a so called democracy that I feel my vote has actually had any value at all. It’s my first (and probably last) opportunity to say fuck off to the establishment that have treated me, all my adult life, as if I was sub-human.”

My own vote for Leave was a cry of rage and pain from the heart. But on Thursday 23rd June 2016, I found out I was not alone. In fact, I think I may have acquired 17.4 million new and unexpected friends.

The TalkTalk "support" experience

Another offering from the Darn-Poor Rhymer

There’s a fault on my phone line,
Dear Talktalk, dear Talktalk,
There’s a fault on my phone line,
Dear Talktalk, a fault!

Then look on our website,
Dear Neil, dear Neil,
Then look on our website,
And make a report!

There’s no form to report it,
Dear Talktalk, dear Talktalk,
There’s no form to report it,
Dear Talktalk, no form!

Then fire up your mobile,
Dear Neil, dear Neil,
Then fire up your mobile,
Dear Neil, call us!

I don’t have a mobile,
Dear Talktalk, dear Talktalk,
I don’t have a mobile,
So I can’t call you!

Then send us an e-mail,
Dear Neil, dear Neil,
Then send us an e-mail,
Dear Neil, just Send!

The subject is technical,
Dear Talktalk, dear Talktalk,
So my e-mail should go to
Which Talktalk address?

Oh, our techies don’t do e-mail,
Dear Neil, dear Neil,
Our techies don’t do e-mail;
Dear Neil, try Chat!

My Chat’s disconnected,
Dear Talktalk, dear Talktalk,
My Chat’s disconnected,
Dear Talktalk, what next?

Try Chat for a second time,
Dear Neil, dear Neil,
A third time, a fourth time,
Dear Neil, and a fifth!

You’ve now logged the problem,
Dear Talktalk, dear Talktalk,
You’ve now logged the problem,
In an hour and a half.

We’ll call with an update,
Dear Neil, dear Neil,
We’ll call with an update,
Dear Neil, we’ll call!

There’s a fault on my phone line,
Dear Talktalk, dear Talktalk,
There’s a fault on my phone line,
Dear Talktalk, a fault!

Ho, Jo?

When, about 2pm on Thursday June 16th, I first heard of an attack on Jo Cox MP, I thought: Is this a deliberate attempt by the political class to fabricate a story with the purpose of distracting the people from the forthcoming Brexit referendum? With Leave in the lead, and starting to accelerate away?

About an hour later, the media reported that the perpetrator had shouted “Britain First!” before shooting, or kniving, or whatever else it did. I smiled to myself. Yes, this was a set-up, I thought, and they’re going to use it as an excuse to blame the Brexit campaign. This was parts 2 and 3 of their strategy. Part 2: If you want to suppress an issue, make something happen that will eclipse it in the news. And part 3: try to make your opponents look bad in the process.

Another hour later, I heard that Jo Cox had died. I thought, Oops. They shouldn’t have let that happen. I thought of David Kelly, and of another Labour politician, Robin Cook.

The next morning, Boris Johnson and others had “suspended campaigning” in the referendum. It took me a while to appreciate the nuance; but this was part 4 of their strategy. They stopped talking about the issue. Officially.

All this will make more sense when you understand that those, like Johnson, that claim to be pro-Brexit aren’t really against the EU at all. They’re only interested in their own chances at power. All politicians, of all parties, are ultimately on the same side; and it’s their side, not mine. (Or yours.)

As to the specific issue of Leave or Remain, I was a Europhile up to about 1991. I thought the EEC was a good thing. But when the economic EEC morphed into the political EU, I lost all confidence in the European project.

I haven’t voted for almost 30 years. I am completely alienated from political society. But I do plan to vote on Thursday, for Leave. And here’s why. It’s the first time in my 63 years living in a so called “democracy” that I feel my vote has actually had any value at all. It’s my first (and probably last) opportunity to say fuck off to the establishment that have treated me, all my adult life, as if I was sub-human.

So, please join me in voting Leave on Thursday. And in wishing that Jo Cox’s killer, be it an organization or an individual, gets the justice it deserves.

Equality, justice and the social contract

Abstract

“Equality” and “justice” are much talked about in politics; but it isn’t always clear just what these words mean. In this essay, I’ll look at different senses in which the words are used, and at the idea, favoured by many on the left, of “social justice.” I’ll also take a look at the “social contract” which is supposed to underlie political society.

Equality

As a first cut at answering the question “What is equality?” I’ll simply quote John Locke’s view on the matter.

1. [Equality is…] “...that equal right that every man hath to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.” – Second Treatise of Government, §54.
   

2. “A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” – Second Treatise of Government, §4.
   

So, in a state of equality, no individual is subject to another, and no-one is sovereign over another. And the power which one has over another must be counterbalanced by equal and opposite power, which the other has over the one. For Locke, in a nutshell, equality is political equality.

And here are views on equality from four fine thinkers of the past.

1. “Equality consists in the same treatment of similar persons...” – Aristotle.
   

2. “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” – Milton Friedman.
   

3. “A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.” – Friedrich August von Hayek.
   

4. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” – George Orwell.
   

For a view from the political left, I’ll give you words of the American labour leader and pacifist, Eugene Victor Debs. “I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.”

Debs, presumably, was talking about the capitalists of his day. But such a criticism could be just as easily levelled at today’s ruling classes, including the politicians and their cronies.

Kinds of equality

So, what kinds of “equality” are commonly put forward as desirable for all? First, political equality, as understood by Locke; no sovereignty over others, no subjection to others.

Second, moral equality. Under this kind of equality, right and wrong are the same for everyone. This leads to the idea of the rule of law.

Third, equality of opportunity. The idea here is that people should receive opportunities to advance themselves by using their talents and abilities. And, in particular, they should not be denied opportunities because they have, for example, the wrong skin colour, religion or gender, or because they don’t belong to the right family.

Fourth, favoured by many on the far left, is equality of outcome. This is the idea that rewards should be similar for all, regardless of talents or of how well an individual applies them.

Areas of inequality

Those, that claim to favour equality, perceive problems of inequality in many diverse areas. The most obvious is economic inequality. Some people are paid more than others; and there are those that think this is wrong in itself, even when the individual justly earns everything he receives. There are even some that go further, saying that it’s wrong for some people to possess more wealth than others.

Other areas in which they see inequality as an issue are: Gender inequality (which, in virtually every case today, proves to be an accusation of mistreatment of women by men). Racial or religious inequality, for example failure to allow civil liberties to those of particular races or religions. And social inequality, such as a ruling class holding back the prospects of certain classes of people. Among such claimed divides we may include capitalists against workers, the “toffs” against the “plebs,” and the rich against the poor. Then there is international inequality, which is said to unfairly favour those who live in relatively well run countries against those who live in relatively badly run ones. And there are more, such as claimed inequalities in education and in health care.

Looking at these shades of inequality, I see that those that make inequality out to be a problem often want to go well beyond equality of opportunity, towards something much closer to equality of outcome. Which, as Hayek pointed out, can only be accomplished by a tyranny; and one that has no compunction about taking resources from the talented, the hard-working, the honest and the deserving, and re-distributing them to the mediocre, the lazy, the dishonest and the undeserving.

Last on the subject of equality, those that promote equality (or, conversely, claim to oppose inequality) show themselves up as hypocrites. They don’t seem to understand that political action to bring about “equality” requires a huge inequality of political power. And they are, frequently, among the richest and the least productive in society – for example, politicians that are paid huge fees to give speeches.

Worse, the political actions they favour are often based on a “zero-sum” view of society. That is to say, they think that the only way to benefit the people they claim to want to help is to take resources away from other people and re-distribute those resources. And they focus, not on helping those few individuals who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own, but on forcing one group of people to help another. They demand sacrifices from other people, but not from themselves. Moreover, they often take away from people the opportunity to help themselves, and end up doing more harm than good; minimum wage laws being a case in point.

Justice

Here’s my first cut, based on the ideas of three thinkers from the past, at an answer to “What is justice?”

1. “Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to everyone his due.” – Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the 3rd century AD. This idea was picked up again in the 6th century by the Emperor Justinian I, and included in his Corpus juris civilis.
   

2. “The universal law of justice is: act externally in such a way that the free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone according to a universal law.” – Immanuel Kant. My interpretation of what Kant is saying here, in his Germanic professorial way, is in essence “don’t take away others’ freedom of action.”
   

3. “Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.” – Epicurus. I find this a deep insight; not only is justice a two way process, but it’s also about not harming others.
   

My own view incorporates a bit of all three, and says: “Each individual, over the long term and in the round, deserves to be treated as he or she treats others.”

William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, also had something to say about justice. “Justice is justly represented blind, because she sees no difference in the parties concerned. She has but one scale and weight, for rich and poor, great and small.” Here, he is referring to the common personification of justice as “Lady Justice.” Lady Justice carries three objects: a blindfold, a pair of scales and a sword. The blindfold represents impartiality and objectivity, as Penn suggests. The scales represent the weighing of the evidence in every case. And the sword is the instrument of punishment.

For a view of justice from the left, I’ll give you words of Malcolm X. “I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don't think it will be based on the color of the skin...”

As to the relation between equality and justice, I offer the following from John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism: “Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice.” Here, I think, Mill has rightly understood the link between equality and justice. It’s what an individual deserves which matters for the purpose of justice, not – for example – what that individual needs.

Kinds of justice

What kinds of “justice” are put forward as desirable? First, there is objective, individual justice; in which, broadly, individuals are to be treated as they treat others. I think of this as a second function of Lady Justice’s scales, in that it balances the interests of the individual against the interests of others.

Second, there is the kind of justice delivered by honest courts of law. This is divided into restorative justice – that is, compensation to the victim or victims of a harm – and retributive justice, that is, criminal punishment for intentional harms.

Third comes “social justice.” Mill, above, was clear that social justice is in reality no different from objective, individual justice. Yet those favouring “social justice” generally use a looser definition. Wikipedia, for example, describes it as the “fair and just relation between the individual and society.” But the words “fair” and “just” are not elucidated.

Then there is distributive justice – for example, promoting a “fair” distribution of income or wealth. Mill, again, had this right; and yet, the supporters of distributive justice do not tell us exactly and without doubt what they mean by “justice,” or who has the right to determine what is “fair.”

And then there are imbecilities such as “environmental justice” and “global justice,” which seem to be no more than excuses for forcibly imposing equality of outcome.

Social justice

I’ll offer you two cynical views on “social justice,” with both of which I can agree.

1. “Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn.” – Walter E. Williams.
   

2. “Either ‘social justice’ has the same meaning as ‘justice’ – or not. If so – why use the additional word ‘social?’ … If ‘social justice’ means something different from ‘justice’ – then ‘something different from justice’ is by definition ‘injustice.’” – Janusz Korwin-Mikke.
   

These, however, are not the views of the promoters and supporters of social justice. And the United Nations is perhaps the worst culprit at promoting injustice in the name of “social justice.” For consider the following statements from a 2006 report entitled Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations.

1. “Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...”
   

2. “Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.”
   

It’s clear that this kind of “social justice” is no more than an excuse for totalitarian government powers. And, when implemented, it leads to a three-class society. On one hand, there is the productive class of honest, economically active people, who are drained of our earnings and denied the wealth we deserve. On the other, there is a recipient class, partly of the lazy and dishonest and partly of the stupid, who are spoon-fed drips of wealth that they do not earn. And between and above the two is a ruling class, that creams off for itself much of the wealth generated by the productive, and feeds the remainder to the recipient class in exchange for their political support.

The social contract

For any idea of “social justice” to be meaningful, there must, first, be a society. That is, people must have formed a political society. And the root, from which such a society is commonly seen as arising, is the so called social contract.

Here’s the idea behind the social contract. We, the individuals who are forming the political society, consent to submit to the authority of a government. We give away some of our freedoms, and we take on obligations to other members of the society. In exchange, we – in theory – receive protection of our remaining rights.

The consent of an individual to such a social contract may be explicit or tacit. But all political governments today behave as if this consent is tacit and implied. For example they assert that, by remaining in the area controlled by a government, an individual consents to submit to that government.

Thinkers of the past have taken differing views on the social contract. Thomas Hobbes, a monarchist at heart, argued that government should have all but absolute authority. John Locke, on the other hand, saw government merely as a neutral judge, doing no more than protect life, liberty and property. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that government should act according to the “general will.” That is, individuals should be subordinated to the will of “the people” as a whole. And Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, generally considered the first anarchist, took a different view again; that the social contract is a contract between individuals, and doesn’t involve government.

I’ll give you here the views of Locke and Proudhon, the two with whom I can agree:

1. “The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it.” – Second Treatise of Government, §95.
   

2. “The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, is substituted for that of distributive justice.” – General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century.
   

“Commutative” means “working either way round,” while “distributive” justice is justice imposed from the top. So Proudhon is telling us again, as did Epicurus, that justice is a two way process.

In more recent times, John Rawls’ so called “Original Position” has been used to try to justify a leftist view of the social contract. In this thought experiment, a group of people aim to agree on a political and economic structure for themselves. Each of them is behind a “veil of ignorance,” meaning that they don’t know what their own abilities or characteristics will be, and so whether or not they will be favoured by a particular social structure. Rawls argues that they will use a strategy called “maximin,” in essence aiming to maximize the payoff in the event of the worst possible outcome. From this he deduces that (beyond a basic minimum set of rights and liberties) any inequalities that do exist must benefit the least advantaged. This is usually interpreted as supporting a system of economic egalitarianism.

My own reaction to Rawls’ thought experiment is: I can just about accept the “maximin” strategy. So, I see the argument for egalitarianism. However, left to myself, I would choose a social structure based on political equality rather than economic equality. That is, I would pick, as my preferred social structure, John Locke’s kind of equality, in which no individual is subject to another, and no-one is sovereign over another.

Difficulties with the social contract

On the social contract, I’m in broad agreement with Locke and Proudhon, and I disagree with Hobbes, Rousseau and Rawls. When I try to list my specific difficulties with the social contract idea, I come up with at least the following.

1. Where is my signature on the contract?
   

2. Who, exactly, are the parties to the contract?
   

3. What, precisely, have I promised, and what have I been promised?
   

4. What if the government fails to deliver its promises?
   

5. What if it fails to respect my natural rights?
   

6. What if it gets taken over by one or another dishonest criminal gang?
   

7. What if it singles out some (types of) people for better or worse treatment than others?
   

8. What if those in political power seek to enrich themselves and their cronies at my expense?
   

The underlying conflict: bottom up versus top down

When talking of equality, justice, the social contract and related matters, there are two fundamentally opposed points of view. One is a bottom up approach; the other a top down one. To illustrate the differences, I offer the following table.

General Approach	Bottom up	Top down
Thinking method	Evidence based	Faith based
Natural social organization	Horizontal, decentralized	Hierarchical, centralized
Political outlook	Individualist	Collectivist
Preferred political flavour	Freedom	Authority
Natural characteristics	Honesty and integrity	Dishonesty and corruption
View on social contract	Voluntary and explicit	Tacit
View on equality	Moral and political equality	Equality of outcome
View on justice	Objective, individual justice	“Social justice” et al.
Preferred economic system	Free market, laissez faire (e.g. Austrian)	Controlled/managed (e.g. Keynesian)
Preferred means of income	Work and trade	Theft or fraud

My own view

My own view on the matters I discuss here is founded on the bottom up approach, as opposed to the top down approach favoured by the enemies of liberty.

For me, the sense in which we are all equal is that we are all morally equal. I express this as: “What is right for one to do, is right for another to do in similar circumstances, and vice versa.” This has two implications. One is political equality, in John Locke’s sense; no subjection of one to another. The other is the rule of law.

My argument for this view is to say to my opponents: If not, then exactly who is to be allowed moral privilege over others? How much? When? Why? Who are you to decide? And why should you yourself not be thrown down to the very bottom of the heap?

As to justice, I see rights (human rights) and ethical obligations as two sides of the same coin. To every valid right, there corresponds an obligation. The particular obligation, which maps to the right to justice, is Confucius’ Golden Rule. In its negative form, this rule says “do not harm others,” and this is consistent with Epicurus’ view on justice, above. In the positive form, which I characterize as “Treat others at least as well as they treat you,” this leads to a view of justice as the idea that no-one should, over the long run, be treated worse than they treat others. But in practice, people will not be inclined to treat well those that treat them badly; so for me, justice boils down to the idea that, over the long run and in the round, you deserve to be treated as you treat others.

On the subject of the social contract for governance, I see peace and justice as valuable to human beings. And so, it’s good for groups of people to contract together to secure these ends. Unlike the situation in a political state, however, I don’t see why every individual in a given geographical area needs to sign up to the same contract.

I envisage the new form of the social contract to be more like an agreement between individuals and an insurance company, than submission to the authority of a political government. I expect that the contract will be voluntary and explicit, never tacit. And it will be a business contract like any other. For example, it will clearly state the deliverables. It will state the terms and conditions for payment. And it will cover such issues as renewal and termination options, procedures for dispute resolution, and an agreement on the handling of breaches by either party.

In conclusion

I’ve examined various views on the subjects of equality, justice and the social contract; and I’ve reached my own conclusions. In summary, for me, equality is moral and political equality. Justice is the condition in which, over the long run and in the round, each individual is treated as he or she treats others. And I see a need for a new kind of social contract for governance, which will be voluntary, and will take the form of a business contract like any other.

Politics and Psychopathy

This essay has been updated. Please see http://www.honestcommonsense.co.uk/2019/04/on-politics-and-psychopathy.html.