On the Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns
"He loved liberty as other men love power," was the judgment passed on Benjamin Constant by a 19th-century admirer. His great public concern, all throughout his adult life, was the attainment of a free society, especially for his adopted country, France; and if a (by no means uncritical) French commentator exaggerated in calling him the inventor of liberalism, it is nevertheless true that in the second and third decades of the 19th century, when liberalism was the specter haunting Europe, Constant shared with Jeremy Bentham the honor of being the chief theoretical champion of the creed. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (5)
An interesting read, however much that was said
could have been said more clearly by using fewer embellishments.
Published: July 20, 2007 10:35 PM
I think he gave too short a shrift to the Roman Republic, especially relative to Athens. The Romans were not as much into direct, participatory democracy as the Athenians. The reason they developed written and publicly available law was to ensure that the common person knew what it was and the authorities could not abuse their power by punishing them for things they didn't know was law or not. Even when it had become an empire, people like the apostle Paul could still call upon their rights as Roman citizens to escape official persecution, rather than merely engage in collective political deliberation.
It seems odd that Constant views the smallness of the ancient states compared to the large modern nation states as a bad thing! Having smaller states reduces exit costs and induces policy competition. I will take the federation of liberty or the union of liberty anyday. His stating that the modern republics will avoid war turned out to be terribly disproven by history.
It is also odd that he declaims ostracism, when many anarcho-capitalists here have pointed to it as a way to punish or prevent aggressors without violence. I do not think it can go as far as they do, but that's a discussion for another day. I suppose Constant would think much ill of Max Stirner, given his disparaging remark on "egoism", but I like this from Stirner too much not to post it:
"The State cannot give up the claim that its laws and ordinances are sacred. At this the individual ranks as the unholy (barbarian, natural man, "egoist") over against the State, exactly as he was once regarded by the Church; before the individual the State takes on the nimbus of a saint. Thus it issues a law against dueling. Two men who are both at one in this, that they are willing to stake their life for a cause (no matter what), are not to be allowed this, because the State will not have it: it imposes a penalty on it. Where is the liberty of self-determination then? It is at once quite another situation if, as e. g. in North America, society determines to let the duelists bear certain evil consequences of their act, e. g. withdrawal of the credit hitherto enjoyed. To refuse credit is everybody's affair, and, if a society wants to withdraw it for this or that reason, the man who is hit cannot therefore complain of encroachment on his liberty: the society is simply availing itself of its own liberty. That is no penalty for sin, no penalty for a crime. The duel is no crime there, but only an act against which the society adopts counter-measures, resolves on a defense. The State, on the contrary, stamps the duel as a crime, i.e. as an injury to its sacred law: it makes it a criminal case. The society leaves it to the individual's decision whether he will draw upon himself evil consequences and inconveniences by his mode of action, and hereby recognizes his free decision; the State behaves in exactly the reverse way, denying all right to the individual's decision and, instead, ascribing the sole right to its own decision, the law of the State, so that he who transgresses the State's commandment is looked upon as if he were acting against God's commandment -- a view which likewise was once maintained by the Church."
Finally, with regard to his remark on "political liberty" as opposed to "individual liberty", I would like to point out Will Wilkinson's writings on "political libertarianism", which can accommodate Randian, Rothbardian, John Stuart Millian, Smith/Hayeckian or other varieties of ideals of liberty.
Published: July 21, 2007 7:29 AM
Sparta is a republic because she has mixed government. The Spartan Republic She was not a "monastic aristocracy". Second, it was the Doric Greeks that influenced development of Athens and her mixed government under Solon and the Roman republic.
Second, the Doric states was built on the paradigm of the family. What child does what he wants in the Family? None. So what makes you think that lesser persons in the state can do whatever they want? Look at the state of America with its vulgarity, its puerility, its degradation, its loss of any European culture. America is a failed state.
The Doric Greeks based their political philosophy on Wisdom, not on liberty. And because they based their life on Wisdom, they had liberty. Liberty is NOT what life is all about. Life is War. Life is about survival. Life is not about liberty. That is wisdom. Basing life on "liberty" is foolishness.
Published: July 24, 2007 9:24 PM
The link worked in the preview but not when posted. Here is the link to the Spartan Republic: http://www.sparta.markoulakispublications.org.uk/index.php?id=105
Published: July 24, 2007 9:27 PM
"Life is not about liberty. That is wisdom. Basing life on "liberty" is foolishness."
I'm sure there are many potential slaveowners out there who'd just love to know this. ;)
Published: July 25, 2007 4:30 AM