I have thought for some time that the primary purpose of any Government is to protect and enhance the freedoms of the people. But I haven't found anyone much to agree with me.
"Freedom" doesn't mean the absolute right to go around doing what one pleases. Measured's is a very pessimistic view of the world which says that because there are people who go around harming others we should all just sit meekly and do what the state tells us.
I'm reading Douglas Carswell's book The End of Politics at the moment. I already disagree with some of the things he says but he makes a very interesting point about divide and rule policies. He is talking about tax but it could be anything: the government is very good at not upsetting large sections of the electorate at the same time. That feeds into Alex's answer to Q1 (and probably leaves Q2 unanswerable).
Measured's second point is a good one: there are not many places which overall are as free as Britain. That's not to say that we have it right, but most other places have it even more wrong.
1. a. Because "freedom" is not a clear concept. Neither is it agreed whether it is desirable in itself, or as a means to some other end. b. Because a government that offers total freedom ceases to be a government. Therefore, every government would have to have limits on freedom.
2. Get clear on what one means by "freedom" and why it is desirable. That might begin by being clear on what it is about our political parties that are objectionable. There's no doubt that the present Conservative Party is far too muddled philosophically to be as statist as it is. That's why it's running the risk of looking tyrannical.
Blue Eyes, I am happy for the State to punish those that murder without having to get involved personally. I do not want lynch mobs and vigilantes roaming the place.
Albert, as ever I agree with you (except about the ordination of women and other trivia. :-))) Freedom is not a clear concept. It always goes back to definitions. To analyse it, we are free to do certain things within boundaries. That is how it should be but where to set the boundaries is problematic.
Remember Cameron was going to simplify so many laws? It is obviously easier said than done when lawyers get involved, hence the perception of tyranny. It usually pays the lawyers to object. Still, puts food on the tables of the legal profession. The trouble is the Law Society protects the profession and it is all incomprehensible to the man on the omnibus.
Reefknot, how do you protect and enhance at the same time? There is usually someone worse off. If I use the analogy of zoo animals, build higher fences and put more food in the enclosure does not mean that freedom is greater. There is more choice about what to eat though.
Remember Cameron was going to simplify so many laws?
Cameron was going to do a lot of things...and some people fell for it.
The freedoms I would like would be based on natural law. Any restriction that cannot be defended at that bar is an arbitrary power-bid. That's why there's not much to choose between the main parties and why most people - even those who profess not to believe in natural law - find them oppressive in some way.
The Roman Catholic will have to have a revelation about women by 2042 to keep up. This is evidently a far easier way forward than discussion.
It would be a fine thing for any Roman Catholic to accuse Cameron of being a hypocrite since when it comes to birth control, they are the biggest bunch there is but I don't blame them. I think Cameron just doesn't have enough time to overcome the bureaucratic obstacles.
One's perception of natural law depends on upbringing. Real injustice comes in the inability to challenge the decisions of authorities because at the most basic level, such as a parking ticket, if you challenge, the penalty will often be doubled. This is inherently unfair.
The number of people and the need to control them to ensure systems operate efficiently will gradually make governance and procedures more draconian. Hence the individual becomes increasingly powerless and oppressed.
I am told self immolation is the most painful death imaginable. The other drawback is that it is fatal. It takes bravery to fight for freedom.
The Roman Catholic will have to have a revelation about women by 2042 to keep up.
To keep up with what? The role of the Church is to be faithful to God as revealed in Jesus Christ. Why on earth would any Christian want to turn our backs on the example of Christ in order to embrace the practices of secular society? It makes no sense. Moreover, it is bad for our congregations. The more liberal the church, the smaller the congregation. If all the Church does is reflect the world, no one has any use for it, you may as well just stay in bed. But if the Church preaches the gospel, then it has something to say. Hence, churches with traditional teaching are always much stronger than those that flatter the world by saying the world has it right and Jesus has it wrong.
The CofE is dying because, by trying to be relevant, it has ceased to be relevant! The relevance of the Church is not that it is contemporary or reflection of the secular world-view. What makes it relevant is that it responds to my desire for God, for the eternal, for the transcendent.
It would be a fine thing for any Roman Catholic to accuse Cameron of being a hypocrite since when it comes to birth control, they are the biggest bunch there is but I don't blame them.
I agree, except that I am not a hypocrite on that question.
One's perception of natural law depends on upbringing.
There's some sense in that. But my point would be that laws should be based on the truth about human nature, not just on some kind arbitrary act of will or power bid.
An even better solution than law is culture. But secularism eats away at the roots of culture. In the long run, you cannot have a culture without (to use the term in its proper sense) a cult.
It struck me that Albert comments that "freedom" is an insufficiently clear concept to allow it to be used as a political banner, and Measured objects to its unfettered pursuit on the basis of a different (but admittedly valid) interpretation. Some work is needed there, obviously. Perhaps freedom is just something we ave taken for granted for so long that we have collectively forgotten what it is, so do not notice its erosion. That would explain Alex's (undoubtedly true) observation.
ReefKnot has identified the ideal role for the State, but it doesn't do that. It protects and enhances its own role, instead, because there is no real check on its behaviour.
So I think the issue is wider than Measured's analysis as "the inability to challenge the decisions of authorities". That is, I think, true, but those authorities often make the initial decisions of themselves, for themselves, and without consulting us.
Like BE, I'm also reading Carswell's book. he uses the interesting example of when Brown saved the world by bailing out our banks to the tune of £500bn - £500,000,000,000 or nearly half the UK's GDP, then came to Parliament to announce that he had done it. He didn't at any point ask the permission of our elected representatives, he just got on with it and spent our money.
It all comes back to the absence of an effective parliamentary check on the State. With three parties whose effective views vary between "Statist" and "Very Statist", no-one speaks for us.
Albert - it's the Lib Dems. Their inherent desire to be incredibly Statist is partially neutralised by their utter inability to make a decision.
Did you hear the one about when Dave and Nick went to a bookshop to ask for a book on how to create a coalition? The shopkeeper said, “It’s over there on the left… sorry, I mean the right… No! I tell a lie. We sold out.”
1. Well, because not enough voters care about their liberties.
ReplyDeleteBut that just gives us a different question.
2. No idea.
1. Since everyone, apart from you, knows that there is always someone* who incites others to abuse the trust that accompanies freedom.
ReplyDelete2. Leave*
* usually by making unrealistic promises.
** but I can't work out a better destination.
I have thought for some time that the primary purpose of any Government is to protect and enhance the freedoms of the people. But I haven't found anyone much to agree with me.
ReplyDelete"Freedom" doesn't mean the absolute right to go around doing what one pleases. Measured's is a very pessimistic view of the world which says that because there are people who go around harming others we should all just sit meekly and do what the state tells us.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading Douglas Carswell's book The End of Politics at the moment. I already disagree with some of the things he says but he makes a very interesting point about divide and rule policies. He is talking about tax but it could be anything: the government is very good at not upsetting large sections of the electorate at the same time. That feeds into Alex's answer to Q1 (and probably leaves Q2 unanswerable).
Measured's second point is a good one: there are not many places which overall are as free as Britain. That's not to say that we have it right, but most other places have it even more wrong.
1. a. Because "freedom" is not a clear concept. Neither is it agreed whether it is desirable in itself, or as a means to some other end.
ReplyDeleteb. Because a government that offers total freedom ceases to be a government. Therefore, every government would have to have limits on freedom.
2. Get clear on what one means by "freedom" and why it is desirable. That might begin by being clear on what it is about our political parties that are objectionable. There's no doubt that the present Conservative Party is far too muddled philosophically to be as statist as it is. That's why it's running the risk of looking tyrannical.
Blue Eyes, I am happy for the State to punish those that murder without having to get involved personally. I do not want lynch mobs and vigilantes roaming the place.
ReplyDeleteAlbert, as ever I agree with you (except about the ordination of women and other trivia. :-))) Freedom is not a clear concept. It always goes back to definitions. To analyse it, we are free to do certain things within boundaries. That is how it should be but where to set the boundaries is problematic.
Remember Cameron was going to simplify so many laws? It is obviously easier said than done when lawyers get involved, hence the perception of tyranny. It usually pays the lawyers to object. Still, puts food on the tables of the legal profession. The trouble is the Law Society protects the profession and it is all incomprehensible to the man on the omnibus.
Reefknot, how do you protect and enhance at the same time? There is usually someone worse off. If I use the analogy of zoo animals, build higher fences and put more food in the enclosure does not mean that freedom is greater. There is more choice about what to eat though.
What freedoms would you all like? Discuss.*
* Adultery is not illegal. Speeding is.
Measured,
ReplyDeletetrivia Trivia?!!!!
Remember Cameron was going to simplify so many laws?
Cameron was going to do a lot of things...and some people fell for it.
The freedoms I would like would be based on natural law. Any restriction that cannot be defended at that bar is an arbitrary power-bid. That's why there's not much to choose between the main parties and why most people - even those who profess not to believe in natural law - find them oppressive in some way.
The Roman Catholic will have to have a revelation about women by 2042 to keep up. This is evidently a far easier way forward than discussion.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a fine thing for any Roman Catholic to accuse Cameron of being a hypocrite since when it comes to birth control, they are the biggest bunch there is but I don't blame them. I think Cameron just doesn't have enough time to overcome the bureaucratic obstacles.
One's perception of natural law depends on upbringing. Real injustice comes in the inability to challenge the decisions of authorities because at the most basic level, such as a parking ticket, if you challenge, the penalty will often be doubled. This is inherently unfair.
The number of people and the need to control them to ensure systems operate efficiently will gradually make governance and procedures more draconian. Hence the individual becomes increasingly powerless and oppressed.
I am told self immolation is the most painful death imaginable. The other drawback is that it is fatal. It takes bravery to fight for freedom.
Measured,
ReplyDeleteThe Roman Catholic will have to have a revelation about women by 2042 to keep up.
To keep up with what? The role of the Church is to be faithful to God as revealed in Jesus Christ. Why on earth would any Christian want to turn our backs on the example of Christ in order to embrace the practices of secular society? It makes no sense. Moreover, it is bad for our congregations. The more liberal the church, the smaller the congregation. If all the Church does is reflect the world, no one has any use for it, you may as well just stay in bed. But if the Church preaches the gospel, then it has something to say. Hence, churches with traditional teaching are always much stronger than those that flatter the world by saying the world has it right and Jesus has it wrong.
The CofE is dying because, by trying to be relevant, it has ceased to be relevant! The relevance of the Church is not that it is contemporary or reflection of the secular world-view. What makes it relevant is that it responds to my desire for God, for the eternal, for the transcendent.
It would be a fine thing for any Roman Catholic to accuse Cameron of being a hypocrite since when it comes to birth control, they are the biggest bunch there is but I don't blame them.
I agree, except that I am not a hypocrite on that question.
One's perception of natural law depends on upbringing.
There's some sense in that. But my point would be that laws should be based on the truth about human nature, not just on some kind arbitrary act of will or power bid.
An even better solution than law is culture. But secularism eats away at the roots of culture. In the long run, you cannot have a culture without (to use the term in its proper sense) a cult.
Interesting, thank you all.
ReplyDeleteIt struck me that Albert comments that "freedom" is an insufficiently clear concept to allow it to be used as a political banner, and Measured objects to its unfettered pursuit on the basis of a different (but admittedly valid) interpretation. Some work is needed there, obviously. Perhaps freedom is just something we ave taken for granted for so long that we have collectively forgotten what it is, so do not notice its erosion. That would explain Alex's (undoubtedly true) observation.
ReefKnot has identified the ideal role for the State, but it doesn't do that. It protects and enhances its own role, instead, because there is no real check on its behaviour.
So I think the issue is wider than Measured's analysis as "the inability to challenge the decisions of authorities". That is, I think, true, but those authorities often make the initial decisions of themselves, for themselves, and without consulting us.
Like BE, I'm also reading Carswell's book. he uses the interesting example of when Brown saved the world by bailing out our banks to the tune of £500bn - £500,000,000,000 or nearly half the UK's GDP, then came to Parliament to announce that he had done it. He didn't at any point ask the permission of our elected representatives, he just got on with it and spent our money.
It all comes back to the absence of an effective parliamentary check on the State. With three parties whose effective views vary between "Statist" and "Very Statist", no-one speaks for us.
Albert, Measured, you're heading way off topic. So try here instead: http://thepatentlyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/bishops-wearing-frocks.html
ReplyDeleteWith three parties whose effective views vary between "Statist" and "Very Statist"
ReplyDeleteSorry, which of the parties is only "statist"?
Albert - it's the Lib Dems. Their inherent desire to be incredibly Statist is partially neutralised by their utter inability to make a decision.
ReplyDeleteDid you hear the one about when Dave and Nick went to a bookshop to ask for a book on how to create a coalition? The shopkeeper said, “It’s over there on the left… sorry, I mean the right… No! I tell a lie. We sold out.”
Their inherent desire to be incredibly Statist is partially neutralised by their utter inability to make a decision.
ReplyDelete:-)