Appenzell
Switzerland |
A Daily Compendium
of Free-Market Thinking
|
|
|
|
Guest Editorial
Democracy and Liberty
Saturday, March 20, 2010 – by
Dr. Tibor Machan
Dr. Tibor Machan
The point deserves to be made over and over: majorities have no just authority to trump individual rights! That old dependable standby of the lynch mob is a perfect illustration of this. Just because the whole town wants to hang the suspect, it doesn't follow that it would be right to do so. The sheriff will defend the process due the accused because justice demands it. Why? Because no one may be punished or indeed imposed upon without it first having been demonstrated that the punishment or imposition is justified, deserved, or warranted.
Of course, this line of thinking takes it as a fact that individuals and their basic rights matter most than the popular will. Yet that should not be very difficult to grasp. So another old saying has it wrong – 50 millions frenchmen can indeed be wrong! Millions of Nazis and communists and people around the globe with all kinds of superstitions can be and are wrong.
However, if one is wrong within one's own sphere of authority, on one's own property for example, or in one's own religious or philosophical convictions, that's no one else's business to fix except perhaps one's best friend or a family member who cares and would nudge one in the right direction. But being wrong is an individual right! The U.S. Constitution attests to this with its First Amendment which certainly protects everyone who may be wrong about religion or other matters of belief.
Individual rights apply to all, including, especially, to those in the minority. In a bona fide free country one is free to be and do what one chooses provided this doesn't impose on others something they do not deserve coming to them. So when someone doesn't want to carry health insurance, that is something he or she has a perfect right to do. (The example of car insurance is a bad one since the roads are government run, so the government may make the rules for who may or may not use them. One's body and health doesn't belong to the government!)
A few years ago the journalist and Newsweek International's editor Fareed Zakaria published a book, The Future of Freedom in which he worked out a pretty good set of criteria for which countries are liberal and which are illiberal democracies. I think he was too easy on some topics so he allowed for a lot more democratic meddling in people's lives than is justified, morally or politically. Nonetheless, the distinction Zakaria worked with is a very instructive one. When democracy intrudes on individual liberty, it is wrong – it amounts to mob rule, period, however civilized it may appear to be. But when democracy operates without such intrusiveness, it is a permissible method (though not always the soundest) for making decisions in small or large groups.
The American Founders identified every human being as equal in respect of having certain unalienable rights, among them to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This pretty much amounts to the best guide as to what may not be done to the citizens of a country – their lives, liberty and their choice of what is important to them may not be voted on. It is for them to decide and no one else, other than as advisors or consultants or teachers. Certainly not as daddies or nannies, even if they are in the majority. As the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled, "One's right to life, liberty, and property . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (U.S. Supreme Court 319 U. S. 62, 638)
It is in fact a quintessential feature of the American political tradition, this insistence on individual rights, something that irks so many rulers and their apologists across the globe and even here in the U.S.A. The fact that everyone has these rights is clearly the greatest bulwark against tyranny. Sadly, this element of the American political tradition has never been fully accepted even in America, let alone elsewhere, so one must constantly be vigilant in opposition to those who would ignore it, from the Right or the Left or indeed any circle of enthusiasts who want to ride roughshod over us.
Post Feedback
We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.
View Feedback
Posted by Rob on 3/20/2010 6:53:32 AM
"But when democracy operates without such intrusiveness, it is a permissible method (though not always the soundest) for making decisions in small or large groups."
Thd above is very wrong in my opinion, Democracy is an excuse used by a small elite to bring in laws which favor them. Democracy allows this with much more ease than any other form of government.
America does not appear to be especially individualistic to me, it was built on genocide, and the doctrine of "manifest destiny" can be traced to its early formation still in operation today.
All US cities are built on a grid pattern 'the triumph' of planning. Free Markets were largely destroyed by the time the Railways were being built and it has been a continuous process of Centralization, Cartelization and elite control ever since.
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Very interesting observation about cities!
Posted by Stewart Wilcox-Sollof on 3/20/2010 8:36:56 AM
Dear Dr Machan, Language is not a precise logical tool because word values are not precise and are often multiple. A sophist uses this weakness of language to prove invalid arguments. I am not accusing you of being a sophist, but I question some of your arguments.
Firstly this statement:'The point deserves to be made over and over: majorities have no just authority to trump individual rights! That old dependable standby of the lynch mob is a perfect illustration of this.'
I live in a town in what was the Wild West. One hundred years ago, robbers and murderers were tearing the very fabric of this small society apart. The law was ineffective as intimidation by lawless gangs and lack of legally acceptable proof , gave these rogues full license to rob and murder. A group of towns people lead by local Freemasons marched into the jail and carried off the four most notorious villains and hung them in the local livery stable. The remaining villains took off and the town found peace.
As a famous Frenchman once said when he was asked about the reason for an individual execution " "Pour encourage les autres'.
If someone goes and lives in a cave by himself away from society, yes he may do as he wishes, if he remains in society he must follow those rules laid down that enable us to co-exist.
A fine example of these rules are the Ten Commandments, in a modern society we have many more. I am not arguing for more rules, I am arguing that all the benefits of social cohesion are paid for by restrictions on our individual freedoms.
Secondly this statement:"When someone doesn't want to carry health insurance, that is something he or she has a perfect right to do. (The example of car insurance is a bad one since the roads are government run, so the government may make the rules for who may or may not use them. One's body and health doesn't belong to the government!)'
Our roads are not government run; some are Toll Roads, some are un-adopted roads, some are Shopping Mall property, most are run by Road Departments of Local Authorities. Car insurance laws are based on the very same premise as other social regulations; the protection of the innocent in the event of an injustice. Car insurance is a social law.
If you wish to argue against the social provision of health care, you must also argue against social provision of schooling and you don't, because the removal of free schooling would lead to a more unjust society. It is the same with Health Insurance. Most people who do not have health insurance do not have it because they are too poor to buy it, not because they freely elect not to have it. Insurance companies and private medical establishments put a great burden of cost on US health provision.
The US spends twice as much on health provision per capita than the UK and the UK covers everyone, whereas the US excluded forty million of its "inhabitants. One percent of the population of the United States own fifty six percent of the wealth of the United States. That leaves ninety nine percent of Americans to share just forty four percent of the wealth.
So in truth ninety nine percent of Americans are much poorer than their European counterparts. Many hard working families lose their family homes and the adults of the family often go bankrupt after an older family member goes into health decline and the family has to pay colossal medical bills.
Health Insurance to my mind should be a social thing; as part of society we should all have health cover irrespective of our income and should be taxed to pay for it. I have experienced both health systems in the UK and the US and although there are many criticisms I can make of the UK system, it is far superior to the over costly, unjust system in the US and serves individuals much better.
Thirdly this statement:"As the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled, "One's right to life, liberty, and property . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (U.S. Supreme Court 319 U. S. 62, 638)'
This is an unfortunate substantiation, the modern US Supreme Court is not a good source of social judgment, as I will illustrate:
Taking your above statement, the first word of the Court's ruling is. "One's'- This refers to the individual person? Yes? So rereading your statement above you are asserting as part of your proof that this paradigm of constitutional correctness is wise regarding the individual? Yes? In fact the Supreme Court is an ass (species of horse) when it comes to defining the individual. The Supreme Court in its' wisdom defines a Corporation as an Individual and thereby passes all the rights and freedoms of an individual under law to these Corporations.
Maybe this doesn't sound very stupid till you look at the results; Corporations can apply to the Courts as individuals to protect their individual constitutional rights now, but they are not answerable to the law as individuals are as they cannot be locked up for crimes committed or executed for murders. They garner all the benefits of this stupid ruling without any of the responsibilities that should come with it.
A corporation is a tool/machine just like a knife or a vehicle. A tool or a machine can be used for good or ill, for instance the same knife can be used to chop vegetables or kill a person. The tool is not responsible, it is not moral, it has no ethical values.
Yet now the Supreme Court grants a tool full civil rights without considering the consequences of giving those who wield the tools (run the Corporations) the responsibility and consequences of committing crimes. If the Court wishes to argue that people who run Corporations do not use them to commit criminal acts then I think most people could see how history shows they do.
Dr Machan, do you live in Ivory Tower somewhere?
Posted by Terry Haney on 3/20/2010 11:33:07 AM
The USA is not a democracy, but a representative Republic. The founder were correctly concerned about what John Steward Mills in his Essays on Liberty reffered to as the Tyranny of the Majority". A classic example being represented in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
When the majority is a group of non-producers, they can continually out vote those who produce and make laws to effective steal the wealth of the producers. That is the direction of the USA today. And like John Gault in Rand's book, the producers will slowly disappear. (see todays Bell article about the War on Switzerland).
Then what will the so-called entitled masses do when there is no one the take from?
Posted by Bruce on 3/20/2010 1:09:46 PM
No taxation without representation means no taxation unless you agree to it.
Representation = agreement through attorney in fact, your representative if you are registered to vote.Regulation works the same. Attorneys who have not been put on notice of a restricted delegation of authority, when delegated to act in your stead exercise general power of attorney and bind you to commercial agreements called statutes.How many of you have put your representative on notice of a limit on their delegated power of attorney on your behalf?
The law = notice of claim, including the foundation thereof, minus any adverse claim or offset.
Rights = a well founded claim.
A perfected claim is a claim which is noticed to all possible adverse claimants, where there is no adverse claim within a reasonable and specified time. (Generally multiple notices, or evidence of actual notice and specific waiver is needed.)Learn the law.
Claim your rights. Be free. Don't look to others to declare your rights so you can enjoy them. Declare your own rights. Enjoy them! Make claims against all who infringe upon them.
Posted by Barbara D on 3/20/2010 1:27:28 PM
We are, at all times, individuals AND members of groups. We have rights AND responsibilities. Why do people emphasize the right to be wrong and irresposible? Why don't they emphasize the responsibilities we have as members of these communities? It seems disengeniuous to deny that one's actions have consequences that affect others.
Posted by Ryan on 3/20/2010 6:53:41 PM
If the government can force you to carry car insurance when you travel on government roads, why can't it force you to carry health insurance when you travel on government roads?
Posted by Kaydell Bowles on 3/20/2010 6:57:35 PM
This is a good editorial.
The problem is what and who defines the right. The Constitution says the basic rights as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.This a I agree are the basic rights.
Then the judicial system was there to ensure no infringement upon these rights and the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. However it is ideologies and political parties that have concluded their are other rights i.e. health care and abortions.
These are not rights but needs for individuals and should be addressed as such. Government wants to eliminate personal responsibility and incluse as many rights as possible for it wants to be the giant teat for all to freely drink from.
Posted by Clayton on 3/21/2010 2:37:03 AM
I would like to refer anyone interested in exploring the fallacies inherent in Democracy to Hans Hermann Hoppe's excellent book length essay, "Democracy, the God That Failed."
In it he explains in a logic similar to Hayek and Rothbard why "limited government" is extremely improbable. Exploring the intuitive and observable phenonema of man's character, Hoppe explains the likely outcome of falling prey to this delusion.
They are not productive of an increase in either individual freedom or justice. Correctly understood, Self-Government means you govern yourself.
In my conversations with Dr. Hoppe, I suggested that rather than use the highly charged catagory of "Anarcho-Captialism" it would be both more acceptable and more accurate to decribe the preferred form of social organization as "Contractualism." Only parties with a material interest have a say in agreements and disputes. No more "Social Contract" and no more "Social Justice."
Reply from the Daily Bell:
Thanks for the recommendation. We are aware of his fine work. You must have found such conversations with him most interesting.
Post Feedback
We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.
|
News & Analysis
Guest Editorials
Subscribe to the
Daily Bell Newswire
|
Exclusive Interviews
|
|
© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise. ARBP often uses images licensed from Getty Images on the Swiss Confidential website. To unsubscribe from the Daily Bell, click here.
|
|
|
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6_207x100.gif)