From the Guardian: “A last-ditch Conservative bid to scupper the government’s plans for extended pub opening hours failed in the Commons tonight. The move was rejected by 302 votes to 228, majority 74. The Tories had hoped to prevent next week’s relaxation of Britain’s drinking laws, with a vote on whether to allow the Licensing Act – passed two years ago – to come into effect… Although the Tories stood little chance of stopping the Licensing Act coming into force, their tactics compelled Labour MPs to record a vote for or against the plans.”
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/4342/is-this-really-why-god-made-conservatives/
Is this really why God made Conservatives?
Previous post: Homesteading, Initial Acquisition, and Self-Ownership
Next post: And Then a Miracle Occurs
{ 28 comments }
Jeffrey – Going further, Misesian economics correctly tells why things happen as they do, but it says nothing about the practical ability to implement policy achieving a free private-property country. In that respect, much criticism is an exercise in fantasy, while Constitutional government is not.
The corruptible nature of man is an essential part of any political structure. The framing fathers knew this (and in fact nearly all were deeply religious non-denominational Christians, as was the population). Why not more about this on Mises.org? The persistence of anti-conservative viewpoint is a serious issue: if Misesian theory cannot be practically implemented, it is not useful to any degree to criticize the supposed “failures”. That element it shares (partly) in common with socialism: utopia is not an option.
Given that this alcohol restriction probably covers too broad a geographic area to be legitimate state action, what about this: if it was a smaller area, would you care and why?
Or is the adherance to private property (irrespective of the damage to nearby people) absolute in your mind? For instance, restricting the use of alcohol because the Mardi Gras crowd routinely creates massive property because there is a lack of an ability to effectively police the drinkers. Or perhaps better, forcing the incomers to pay for insurance at some multiple of damage they have caused in the past. Seems to me private property isn’t entirely the solution to many problems. I think we should be on board with Ron Paul and off-board with anarcho-capitalists.
2nd sentence last paragraph should read: For instance, restricting the use of alcohol because the Mardi Gras crowd routinely creates massive property damage because there is a lack of an ability to effectively police the drinkers.
What the state wants is power and money, and the only question is what ideological veneer it will use to get them. The political left falls for the language of equality and fairness, whereas the political right falls for moralism and nationalism. The result is always the same: more police telling us what to do with our lives and property. Only the slogans change.
Jeffrey – Depends what you mean by “conservatives”. They are not a homogenous group. After all, saying that conservative support of moral limits are decreasing freedom is to indirectly criticize Ron Paul, or even George Washington. Our founders were practical men and implementation of a just workable society was paramount. I see lessening commitment to practicality and the Constitution (following the lines of thought of Lysander Spooner and Rothbard) on the anarcho-libertarian side, which is more driven by personality rather than objective view of reality: the reality being that there is no practical way of having a pure private property economy as social structures will always have some common property and destiny, and factors outside of private property severely affect their lives and future.
[I can tell you if you really want to break apart the state, start the drive for private money which by structure eliminates capital gains taxes. If "deflation" won't be allowed to happen, then sound money will continuously appreciate against government money. What stops the transition is having to transition back to dollars for trade and pay capital gains tax].
The new Licensing Act will create a lot of problems in this socialst country, because in most places the infrastructure just isn’t ready to cope with the change.
When I lived in Durham (a small town in northern England) it was usual to see massive lines of drunken revellers late at night, all queing for a taxi home. Public transport didn’t operate at that time, and taxis were subject to strict local regulation which made sure there were much fewer of them than needed.
Normally this would put pressure onto local authorities to liberalise their taxi/local transport infrastructure, but my guess is that London and the Southeast will once again and up footing the bill and subsidising the rest of the country.
I think this issue needs some context here. Britain is rife with intoxication. It consumes more alcohol than any European country – including Germany – which is saying something. Britain is also rife with some of the most Byzantine regulations one could imagine.
This licensing law is on a per application basis. A landlord has to apply to the local council for a twenty-four hour (or an earlier and/or later) opening time. The application must be heard, debated, and voted upon before the pub can extend its hours.
Labour argues that binge drinking occurs because pubs generally shut at 11 or so, and that patrons drink heavily in the last hour, and then spill out onto the streets. I found this to be a general trend this summer only in larger towns, e.g., Bath, Bristol, but not so in smaller villages – and it seems to be more entrenched each year.
Parenthetically, most landlords just shut the front door and let drinking parties out the back when they’re finished anyway. If someone comes to the front door (local constable, etc.), he just declares the remaining patrons a private party, etc. On the other hand, drinkers will eventually come out of the pubs whether at 11 or 3 am. In Britain, there is a huge probability that they will be pissed out of their gourds.
I suppose my point is that neither party is in the theoretical libertarian right. Both are simply arguing over one type of license over the other. But given the propensity for drunkenness in the UK, I think I would rather deal with drunks at 11 or a some reasonable hour, determined by the local council, than all night long.
This isn’t moralism. If you owned a home by the pub, I dare say that you wouldn’t want your property treated like the yob culture in Britain treats private (and public) property.
“This isn’t moralism. If you owned a home by the pub, I dare say that you wouldn’t want your property treated like the yob culture in Britain treats private (and public) property.”
That’s what I thought as soon as I read Jeffrey Tucker’s post. It’s easier to have longer drinking hours in North America as the bars here aren’t normally close to our houses and in North America getting drunk (north European-style) in bars seems is not the norm.
Labour’s argument about 11pm closing being a major reason for binge drinking is questionable to say the least. When I lived in the UK (only a few years ago) bingeing was the norm whether going to a pub in the afternoon, early evening, or just drinking at home. Indeed, going by my own experience, early closing time just means more people finish their “sessions” at home than in public where they are more likely to make nuisances of themselves. At least when there is a uniform closing time police resources can be concentrated in certain areas around that time. Instead unlimited drinking hours in the UK may well require a greater police presence throughout the night thus requiring more resources.
W Baker — It’s a moral statement to say that others should protect private property of homeowners near the pub … The right “morality” is highly pragmatic. Witness the frequent arguments that take a moral tone on Mises.org.
Jim,
Your contention that “…Misesian theory cannot be practically implemented” and that it therefore is utopian like socialism, is far from a decided issue. What hasn’t yet been tried is not necessarily impossible. Only if an idea fails to account for human nature, or requires a change in human nature to succeed is that idea utopian.
In contrast, what has been tried and failed many times in history, such as constitutional government, can more logically be characterized as impossible and utopian. Especially when theory also shows that it is untenable.
Human nature just cannot be trusted to handle the political power to rule over others. A constitution is a piece of paper. Through it, we propose to ensure that the governing class governs and constrains itself as well as its subjects. Now there’s the exercise in fantasy.
The masses are mobs and are subject to the influences of those who are most adept at lying and deceiving. Therefore those most adept at lies and deceit succeed most and rise to the top in politics. What we see in real politics is what we can predict in theory. It’s no confusing or unexpected twist of fate in that persons like Clinton and Bush are elected as President.
Because we live under a statist anti-property environment today, it can be hard to imagine a private property respecting society that could protect people’s property, while at the same time protecting people’s right to sell and buy and consume alcohol. That it may be hard to imagine, does not make the idea impracticable. It just means we’ve drifted a long way in life from where natural law is considered natural.
Mises.org and other sites are packed with online articles that make persuasive arguments and give sensible scenarios of how even the most difficult issues can be dealt with better in a free market than they are currently dealt with by today’s states. Ignorance of these arguments is not an argument against them, and they are too substantial to repeat in blog form. Take a look at the answers given; you’ll like them I’ll bet. And if not we can pick at them one at a time here.
For me, when it comes to question of coercion and violence it is necessary that the adherence to private property remains absolute, and this is precisely because it minimizes property damage to non-aggressors. In my mind, private property is definitely the solution to any and all valid problems which the statists claim to be able to solve with state coercion and compulsion. There is not one instance where an exception need be drawn.
Paul — Good comments with which I mostly agree. The point was that most likely “pure private property” is an impossible system. For instance, if a person comes of legal age, do they have the ability to disown the laws of the land (including those of private property)? If not why not – as they own themselves firstly? Certainly there are a host of instances in which private property does not solve — for instance, x-rated posters on your lawn, disclosing secrets to a foreign enemy, influending a dull (retarded) person to commit crimes (is that person a “self-owner”?), torturing animals in front of children, disobeying quarantines, a landowner that refuses crossing his or her land and thereby landlocks other owners, forcing bad parents to pay for the care of their neglected children, etc. etc. These are solvable primarily by the use of collective force and collective force only.
If a group of people get together and agree on a common set of conduct codes (and likely agree on the power to add or alter them as the case may be) we are effectively back to a form of Constitutional government. Yes it is “holding a weight above our heads” meaning that the natural state of affairs is for men to become lazy and corrupt and thus destroy what was once a civilized country.
However, the “libertarianism is the messiah” view is just not accurate either. We need a return to Constitutional government, with a decentralization of power.
Jim, you are all over the place — if you feel socialism is the answer then pick a topic and run your proofs up the flagpole. Your examples assume a great deal not in evidence – I’m afraid I have to throw them out of court.
And we’ve got a prime example of where a constitutional government leads – no need to retrace our steps.
OK Jim, you have offered up some tough instances of what we might say are highly anti-social activities that libertarians might well also argue are not necessarily, although some might be, infringements on others property. But let’s take, for sake of argument that say “torturing animals” escapes being considered an aggression against property, yet most of us also find it reprehensible.
The articles by Stefan Molyneux, put a great emphasis on economic sanctions against criminals. The concept, i believe, applies with equal efficiency against anti-social deviants who attempt to or succeed in escaping correction or punishment.
“…DROs would simply band together to deny goods, services and contracts to violent criminals. DROs could also pay informants to track the whereabouts of such predators, and would hound them out of a social and economic life to whatever degree they could.”
If insurance companies posted alerts that the person of such and such appearance, with this name, living at this address is torturing animals, and i owned a store, i would authorize, or require my employees not to do business with him. If our society felt about it the way i did, this person would starve in no time flat. Did he agress against property? Nope. Is he going to starve? Yup. All is cool.
On the other hand, if the insurance companies even bothered to warn us that john doe was smoking pot on his porch, the report would mean nothing to me and he would continue to enjoy the service of my store if he wanted to. If our society felt about it the way i did, this person would enjoy a peaceful life and a good joint after dinner on his front porch as long as he chose to.
How does that compare to the state? They lock up non-violent and non-antisocial “criminals” for years, and cost us an arm and a leg and a lot of pain. They are also incompetent at preventing violent crime and in fact are the worst perpetrators of violent crime in our society. It just doesn’t compute.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux3.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
Doege – The rewriting of history (Rothbard) is also a worrisome scenario. Facts should be respected and carefully interpreted. Apparently some economists have decided (apriori logic) to transform economic truth into morality and attempt to retain the same authority: what they believe must be true is in fact true. The wertfrei of Mises allows the interpretation of historical events based on unarguable human psychological truths, but disallows any real statement made about the chosen ends or even the means. Instead we have a morality which transforms a history which becomes a mythology acceptable to the anarcho-libertarian view.
Given the chaotic nature of the struggle for power and man’s corruptible nature, I’d say the libertarian ideology, bereft of a moral basis whereby people manage those things collectively that must be managed collectively and manage those things that cross private property limits using a common code of ethics, is an unimplementable fantasy … As soon as the attempt is made to devolve everything to issues of private property, contradictions occur because people DO have shared futures and they MUST share a morality to live together. So join with a group of “old-style” limited government conservatives and perhaps influence Mises.org back to a healthy respect for the practical implementation of libertarian and free-market philosophy.
You’ll have to be more specific in regards to “all over the place”. Our “prime example of where a constitutional government leads” is the best country on the face of the earth, transforming the face of knowledge and livability at a pace unknown at any time in history … and it wasn’t libertarianism that did it, but a Constitutional form of government, very much opposed to libertarianism in many respects.
Paul – Certainly an option. However, what’s to say (following a similar libertarian argument) that any such majority will remain any more moral than what we have now? Aren’t most of our problems because the majority hasn’t the will to change our government for the better and hasn’t the will to restrain it from private property infringement? So if we agree that the problems originate in the majority of the people now because of their shortcomings how can a “private property universe” that ostracizes immoral people possibly solve it?
The criticisms of foolish government actions (far surpassing their legitimate actions to be sure) are noted and I agree, but they are not from an economic fallacy, but instead because our officials do not want to do their job. You are making a moral argument.
Let’s start walking the talk here.
It seems to me that there is a perfect business opportunity for every libertarian out there: go to large towns and cities in the UK, recruit the blokes who didn’t make the local rugby club (get Welsh Rugby Union players – much rougher than Rugby Union types), and set up a business which offers protection to local property owners. Sort of inverse bouncers.
It won’t be pretty work and will require some physical activity; but at least they can say that they put their money where their mouth was.
Jim:
To my way of thinking, the beauty of my position is that it does not need to assume we improve as individuals, for life to improve under libertarian anarchy. Let’s say we just stay the same as we are now.
Here’s how things would be different. Criminals would have a hard life rather than be running for office every two years. They would not be respected, and not accorded the highest accolades from ignorant state idolaters (the masses).
When someone promised you something for nothing, you would always know he was proposing to give up his own wealth to you, or steal it from someone else to give it to you. You’d understand clearly that there is no third option. The masses would get the picture too.
The only power the next guy would have over you and you over him is the power to abstain from doing business with him and enforcing contract and protecting property. And you would pay for what you get. Even though the masses are the same, they act more as individuals now.
There would be law and property. And the social apparatus that would be most likely to take that away, would not exist; and those who proposed or openly advocated such a threat to life and liberty could even be put on an anti-liberty list of subversives. I’ll tell you what; I wouldn’t let them shop at my store anymore.
W Baker — Are the liability laws in the U.K. as bad as here in the U.S.?
Paul — Yeah. Simplicity is beauty. I partly agree: after all with such a simple and parse set of rules so much ground can be covered.
However, the practical implementation of libertarian society requires more than just a theory of liberty, it requires a real-world approach toward the legal elements that make society in their necessary complexity (i.e. the practical enforcement of property and moral rights by the balance of violent power). A theory of liberty that cannot meet this hurdle is a wasteful fantasy.
Jim,
Liability laws, no; libel laws, yes!
On the other hand, if you resort to the use of a firearm, you’re up the proverbial creek without a paddle. The Brits will put up with a goodly amount of fisticuffs, headbutting, and various assortments of punch-ups, but they won’t tolerate any flying bullets!
Jim, there are no shared futures. This is the dream of socialism and the reason it doesn’t work. One unique future per individual.
I agree that individuals must share a morality to live together but there is legitimately only one – that of individual sovereignty. And that is a libertarian principle. You’re either a volunteer or a slave. Actually, “living together” is a little strong – we don’t need to live together – that’s a personal choice. We only need to respect the right of others to make their own choices.
By “all over the place” I point out that your examples supposedly defying a solution of strict private property make many assumptions about what constitutes a crime and what is private property. I suspect I don’t share your idea of morality.
And, Jim, the government didn’t make this country great, the people who made something of themselves did. It is a testament to the power of free individuals that the engine of production driving this country has not yet been completely throttled by the government.
Your idea of a practical libertarian society is not libertarian at all.
Doege – Probably the biggest threat for libertarian style thinkers is to get bogged down in unworkable purism and lose the fight to roll back the state (especially since libertarian though is growing more prevalent and one day it will be in the cross-hairs of the statists) in the one country in the history of man that had and likely still has the best private property protection in existence. Implementing a private property society would take an enormous amount of force to create and defend (common defense indeed …) and seeing the necessity and desire of a common morality, the new nation would likely devolve into groups of factions that would implement additional “moral codes” limiting behavior they felt was damaging and enforce them with the power of majority enforced law. States certainly have done this. In fact, states were founded on this principle itself (a common religious morality) when escaping England.
Practically speaking, most people do not want their children to be seduced by bad characters (would you be upset if your 13Yr girl was “dating” a 30Yr old man or if you found your 17 Yr old son doing crack with a drug-pusher? Think there should be a law against those things (not saying here that I agree with our drug laws, by the way)? Do you have no legal enforceable obligation to feed your children or can you abandon them to starve because you “owe no positive duty to them”). Can we really even have roads without eminent domain (not that I fully agree with that either, but the problems it solves are serious).
I believe we need to be persuading the majority about private property, not creating alternative universes.
W Baker:
On the other hand, if you resort to the use of a firearm, you’re up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Not only firearms but any kind of defensive weapons are prohibited here in the UK: mace spray, pepper spray, etc are just as illegal as firearms and you can go to prison for having one at home. Even an ‘innocent’ item, such as perfume spray, will be counted an offensive weapon if the possessor cannot supply the police with a ‘reasonable’ reason for why he has it on his person. So, in a carrier bag returning from the store it would be OK; in your pocket at 11pm on a Saturday night would land you in jail. The burden of proof is on the citizen, not the police.
Since mace/pepper spray is legal in several other European countries, it is very easy for criminals to obtain, since they tend to have high time preferences and don’t care about the risk of going to jail.
Incidentally, although the UK has (thank God) mandatory life sentences for murder, those for all other violent crimes, including manslaughter, tend to be extremely lenient.
Re: state/no state. Although more of an anarcho-capitalist myself, I don’t really have a problem with the existence of a minimalist state provided it is not a democracy. I would approve for example of a state in which one’s vote is proportional to the amount of taxes paid. A minimalist democracy will inexorably evolve towards socialism. As Hoppe put it “The future of liberalism is social democracy, and the future has already arrived”.
Case in point of how today’s criminals end up in government making immoral laws that people are constrained to follow: “…[perfume spray] in your pocket at 11pm on a Saturday night would land you in jail. The burden of proof is on the citizen, not the police.” (Thanks Marco). The insanity and harmfulness of these sick meddlers is beyond belief. Yet so many support the institution that gives them power to impose themselves on the unsuspecting public. It just makes you shake your head.
Now imagine in a free society how such an idea would be put down. In the highly unlikely event that some moronic rogue insurance company suggested that your insurance rates would rise or they would not insure you because you became a dangerous threat to property by carrying PERFUME SPRAY, what would happen? Here’s what: people would say *&^% YOU, and take their business to a competing insurance company that wasn’t so stupid. End of issue. Under our present bizarre system of ruling class and the ruled, there is literally no telling what we will be asked to endure.
Marco:
I think your inclination towards anarcho-capitalism is well founded. It doesn’t matter how minimalist a government starts out or what form it is intended to be, it will morph and grow, and then grow and morph into a despotic disaster.
Consider that the US federal government was designed NOT as a democracy, but rather as a republic where at least the “states”, rather than the “people” controlled the senate and state participation in the union was definitely considered not just optional, but necessarily optional to reduce the chance of evolution towards a despotic central government. Secession was a check against centralized despotism.
But what happened? Against all great plans of mice and men, this is what we’ve got today.
Re: the weapons talk, etc. I was simply trying to illustrate the larger point here: it’s silly to talk about “conservatives” or “liberals” in Britain. The Tories, Labour, and the Lib. Dems. are all in cahoots to make the state that much bigger.
Look at Blair’s proposal for 90 detention with no charges. He was defeated – and thank God – but he was defeated by the Tory/Lib. Dem.’s who proposed 28 days. What kind of victory is that? Where in the hell is the Magna Carta when one needs it?
Re: the Paul Edwards/Jim Bradley debate. How does one get from the state of the state in Britain now to a completely privatised country? It’s either going to take a cataclysmic event, a financial disaster, or happen gradually over many, many generations.
To add to the complications, Britain, nor any other country (sic) or people, have lived in a perfect state of anarcho-capitalism – nor has anyone ever come close.
But I must admit, it’s a pretty heady goal. Good luck.
I sure see your point about the “not a dime’s worth of difference” syndrome. We suffer that fate in the US too. It’s really quite a trial.
If i’m reading you correctly, you’re saying AC: nice idea, but never been done: can it be done successfully?
My thinking is this: if enough people understood the idea, and liked the idea, and believed in the idea, then it is possible to try it. If it can be tried, it WILL be shown to be highly practicable and people will love it and will travel far and wide to live under it.
It will be shown to NOT be utopian but highly viable. Will the idea reach the critical mass? Who knows. But if it does, i think we will have mises.org and lewrockwell.com as well as others on the net to thank.
I didn’t even answer the question. What a goof-ball.
I’m just guessing, but i suspect it will result from perhaps a series of cataclysmic events. Perhaps mega 9/11s will occur and people will wake up and say “why is this happening to us? We’re nice people” then the libertarians will say, “Read my lips…” one more time. Then it may happen, or perhaps that will just set the stage for it to happen in a later more enlightened generation. They will look back and say, how can we be so lucky to have these insights that our parents did not have, and turn away from statism. I’m just speculating.
Paul et al.,
Every philosophy which lays claim to the answers of the world’s problems is waiting a cataclysmic event or financial meltdown. It’s always predicated by those in the “know” that if these sets of circumstances happen, followed by these, nirvana will break out everywhere.
Nonetheless, my hat’s off to your positive outlook. I’m afraid, however, that human beings are a sloppy and pathetic race who rarely, if ever, neatly fit into any sort of algorithm, spreadsheet, or economic model.
It’s wonderful to have such a positive weltaunshaung: but it just doesn’t jive with history – and unless we all become super-Hegalians – we’re not going to get past history’s examples.
W. Baker,
Thanks for all that. I became more positive about things when i read Rothbard’s argument for taking that view. It was that now that people have known an elevated degree of liberty and prosperity, they will be unwilling to allow socialism to take it all away. And socialism will do that for sure. And we are presently headed in the direction of socialism (of the German kind). More than missing out on something they could have had, humans really hate losing things they once had before. And if they ever get the chance to figure out cause and effect, well…
So, although by which manner it will come, i really have no answer at all, I do see prospects for progress in the libertarian direction. Actually, I see the seeds of it in my Austrian grounded, staunch libertarian-anarchist children. Certainly voluntary education is going to have to play a serious role if it is to happen. If I’m not mistaken, history does suggest that a population can be both highly read and hold in high esteem personal liberty and fear of the state. If it could happen once, I’m not prepared to rule out that it could happen again.
By the way, i also believe humans do unflinchingly fit the Austrian economic model. So maybe there is that as a reason for hope as well.
Comments on this entry are closed.