- Latest Blog Post: Is the BBC hurting British politics? by Rob Knight
- Latest Comment: Joe Otten on Is the BBC hurting British politics?
Subscribe to our RSS feed here
Philosophy of liberty
A little reminder of liberty's core principles
Via Devil's Kitchen, I am reminded of this animation. I've seen it before, but it's worth watching every now and again just as a timely reminder of some of the fundamental principles of liberty. It's often too easy to forget some of these things, given how used we are to liberty in this country and how arcane political debates can become.
Of course, the view of liberty being promoted here is still open to some interpretation; by a particular reading, it could be taken to say that all taxation is theft. Undoubtedly there are times and places where taxation is theft, where it used to unfairly appropriate the property of some people for the benefit of others (or merely for wasteful ends that nobody benefits from). It's always important to remember just how dangerous the levers of government can be in the wrong hands, or merely when the exercise of power becomes so broad that it is no longer possible for individuals to resist or control it.
If you don't want to sit through the whole thing (and I don't really blame you, it doesn't exactly move along at a great pace, although this does give greater opportunities for thought about the message), there's a transcript at Devil's Kitchen (see the link at the start of this post).
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Google
Excellent, but a little spooky. I agree with everything they say, but I do feel like a 6 year old in Brave New World getting my latest lesson in how to be a constructive citizen. Pass me the Soma!
Also, having said "a timely reminder" it is "of some of the fundamental principles of liberty", do you have to cough into your hand while muttering "except that all taxation is theft"?
I'm going to gratuitously post it on my blog, but I'll happily tip my hat to you.
I feel also, that though that illustrates the case for liberty clearly, it feels like it is made for infants. If we need to make the case for liberty more simple, I prefer for instance the kind of short logical steps Robert Nozick made in his essay "The Tale of the Slave" (from Anarchy, State, and Utopia):
Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.
1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.
Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.
7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.
The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?
Oh, I agree, it's quite simplistic and the presentation is a bit odd. But it's worth remembering that, for most of human history, the views expressed would have been revolutionary. Indeed, the idea that people should control their own lives and own the products of their own efforts is still nothing more than an idea at best for many people.
Tom: the problem is that while "all taxation is theft" is an unambiguous philosophical position, it's simply not realistic (yes, I know how weak this line of argument is). We have taxation and even if massive cuts in government services were made, we'd still have taxation to cover the police, courts, defence etc. The best we can aim for is a better understanding of what the legitimate functions of government are, so that we can at least eliminate those amounts taken in taxation which are unnecessary (obvious example: ID card funding).