The economic benefit of the rule of law comes from its being a necessary condition for the security of private property rights and thus for prosperity, not to speak of individual liberty in general. This is clear both from economic theory and from history. No wonder that classical liberals have considered the rule of law as an essential institution. Even anarcho-capitalists or most of them recognize the importance of the rule of law by arguing that it would be discovered or generated by their proposed system. So does Anthony de Jasay, an unconventional liberal anarchist or perhaps a conservative anarchist, who invokes David Hume’s conventions. Without the rule of law, the state is Leviathan; or else a Hobbesian “war of all against all” rages.
If we ignore these considerations, it is difficult to correctly evaluate the significance of the indictment of Donald Trump—and other former heads of state in democratic countries, including France and Italy. In “law and order” properly understood, laws apply equally to ordinary individuals and to statocrats. Trump was wrong when, in his perspective, he wrote on his own social media—“Truth Social,” of all names (“Donald Trump Arrives in New York Ahead of Surrender in Hush-Money Case,” Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2023):
On Tuesday morning I will be going to, believe it or not, the Courthouse. America was not supposed to be this way!
America was certainly meant to be a country where laws would apply to everybody equally. Then, two minutes before entering the Lower Manhattan Courthouse yesterday, he posted (“Trump Arrives at Court for Arraignment,” Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2022):
Heading to Lower Manhattan, the Courthouse. Seems so SURREAL — WOW, they are going to ARREST ME. Can’t believe this is happening in America. MAGA!
He is not the only one to have been arrested in America. He would have been right to criticize the proliferation of laws that constrain and trap so many people, but he did not. It’s all about Narcissus. Lots of ordinary Americans, believe it or not, are indicted and brought to court. Another quixotic presidential candidate, Allen Maldonado a.k.a. “Joe Exotic,” just reminded us of that from his jail. Some suspects cannot simply surrender, but are arrested manu militari. One out of 13 American adults has a felony record. Mr. Trump should not fear being alone.
In fact, he has generally argued for more laws and harsher enforcement, even suggesting that cops arresting suspects should not be too soft with them (see a video reminder). His pardons, on the other hand, often benefited rich or famous people, or his friends. Those people arguably are in less legal jeopardy than ordinary people who follow Donald Trump—or, for that matter, Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders.
QuantGov data give an idea (but only a partial one) of the problem of the multiplication of laws and accompanying regulations. At the end of 2020, the last year of the Trump administration, federal regulations contained 1,082,486 restrictions (measured by the occurrence, under certain conditions, of the words “shall,” “must,” “may not,” “required,” or “prohibited”), which is a bit (0.7%) more than at the end of the last year of the Obama administration. (Source: Patrick McLaughlin, Jonathan Nelson, Thurston Powers, Walter Stover, and Stephen Strosko, RegData US 4.0 Annual [dataset], QuantGov, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, 2021.)
The danger for the rule of law comes from the proliferation of legal obligations and bans, not from treating statocrats like ordinary individuals. The more laws, the easier to use them for persecution of disliked individuals or minorities. Indeed, it seems a standard prosecutorial strategy to shower a suspect with a large number of felony charges in order that at least some of them stick or that he plea-bargains and admits his guilt to at least a few.
Equal justice under law is only possible with essential and parsimonious laws. James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 62:
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Apr 5 2023 at 7:03am
I agree wholeheartedly with the general message of this post, but I’m not sure the specific example of Trump’s tweets works. I see Trump responding to the charges being brought rather than the general act. There’s a pretty wide consensus in the legal profession that these charges are on very sketchy legal ground. I see Trump as reacting to the stink of political prosecution that emanates from these charges.
Of course, I’m assuming here that Trump is aware of the sketchy legal foundations here. As we have seen in the past, Trump is often entirely oblivious to what’s happening around him. So, I could be entirely wrong here.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 5 2023 at 10:53am
Jon: You may be right, but what do you mean by “the general act”? I agree with what you about the seemingly sketchy foundations of the charges, but these foundations are precisely built on what Georges Ripert called “the miracle of the multiplication of laws” (Le Déclin du Droit: Etude sur la législation contemporaine—Paris, 1949).
Jon Murphy
Apr 5 2023 at 11:10am
Forgive my lack of clarity; I was lying in bed when I responded.
What I meant was I read Trump as responding to the charges rather than the idea of him being held accountable.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 5 2023 at 2:19pm
Not a big lie, Jon; some people make them not only in bed.
Laurentian
Apr 5 2023 at 7:37am
Bit strange to use describe a blatantly political prosecution of an opposition candidate as “equality under the law”. Justin Amash is “stunned any prosecutor would move forward with this.” For example. Also I’m sure that the Founders realized the dangers of throwing the opposition in jail considering they would have been very aware of what happened to Walpole, Harley and Bolingbroke in early 18th Century England.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 5 2023 at 10:56am
Laurentian: Please note what I wrote:
Jose Pablo
Apr 5 2023 at 7:30pm
a blatantly political prosecution of an opposition candidate
I don’t know. The only American president to be impeached twice. The only American president to be indicted (very likely more than twice before the end of the year …)
It seems like he makes “blatantly political prosecutions” against him wayyyy to easy.
So much so that I don’t think that using Trump’s indictment in a reflection on the perils of “excess of legislation”(as Hamilton would say) is a good idea at all. Even in a system with just a couple of laws (literally two), Trump will manage to get indicted. No doubt.
And, in any case, what would be the intention behind the “blatantly political prosecution”?
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trump-approval-rating-surges-ahead-161352934.html
Looks like the “opposition” is desperately trying to help Trump winning the Republican primary election because they know too well he will loose, again, the presidential election. After all, he is the less “presidential” of all Republican imaginable candidates, like by far.
Laurentian
Apr 6 2023 at 10:26pm
So because he got indicted it must be inherently just? Strange argument.
And what might those laws be? And you are aware that Bragg literally campaigned on charging Trump and I pointed that noted Trump critic Justin Amash pointed out the ridiculousness of the charges.
If you are trying to insinuate that the goal of Trump being indicted is to ensure he loses in 2024 how is that not blatantly political?
Jose Pablo
Apr 7 2023 at 2:33pm
So because he got indicted it must be inherently just? Strange argument.
Did I say that? … my point was that if you don’t want to be politically prosecuted it could be wise not making “politically prosecute you” so easy
And what might those laws be?
Let’s take the 10 commandments as an example of a “very simple rule of law” (granted I said two, not ten, but couldn’t find any 2 rules legal system universally known). Even under this very simple, no proliferation code, Trump could be indicted for breaching at least number 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Breaching 5 out of 10 makes my statement that he only needs a two-rules-code to be indicted, statistically credible.
In my humble opinion, a legal system that cannot prevent Trump from running for President is “blatantly incomplete”. It is either lacking norms that would make total sense or “blatantly bad” at performing as it should.
Jose Pablo
Apr 7 2023 at 2:45pm
If you are trying to insinuate that the goal of Trump being indicted is to ensure he loses in 2024 how is that not blatantly political?
I forgot this one. No I was not trying to insinuate that. Actually, the indictment helps Trump’s prospects of winning the elections, so the only goal I can imagine is helping Trump to win the republican primary election (which before the indictment looked like a long shot. There are way better republican candidates)
I wouldn’t call that a “prosecution” but a “helping hand”
Many people seem to agree on that
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/04/05/why-do-democrats-keep-helping-trump
Michael Rulle
Apr 5 2023 at 11:21am
I really have no idea what Trump is guilty of. Or Hillary, or The Bidens. What I do believe is what Madison said in Federalist 62. He warned us and we have gone in the extreme opposite direction. And it appears to be just getting worse. We are corrupt.
Monte
Apr 5 2023 at 12:00pm
No doubt. Here’s an interesting anecdote from the Library of Congress blog:
The same applies to the U.S. tax code and the Code of Federal Regulations. Following up on Michael Rulle’s point above, we’re not only corrupt, we’re screwed.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 5 2023 at 2:47pm
Monte: Thanks for the info. I didn’t remember this 1980’s DoJ effort. The evidence I quoted is based on the Code of Federal Regulations, is more recent, and would include non-criminal infractions. It’s worth following the link to QuantGov.
Craig
Apr 5 2023 at 12:33pm
The concept of American exceptionalism is rooted in the concept that American institutions produce fundamentally better results. I see little evidence for that anymore. All I see is a slow moving train wreck. I am hopeful the events yesterday in the City of Yesterday will be another babystep towards #nationaldivorce
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 5 2023 at 2:42pm
Craig: Your claim raises three questions. First (forgive me, this one is a bit nasty!), have you ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance, written by a socialist (Francis Bellamy) in 1892? Second, do you have a theory indicating that it would likely be better under one of the divorcees? Third, could an individual or a group of individuals also divorce from the divorcees?
Craig
Apr 5 2023 at 3:33pm
First (forgive me, this one is a bit nasty!), have you ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance written by a socialist (Francis Bellamy) in 1892?
Actually I was previously aware of the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist, a factoid I picked up after high school and given that I grew up mostly in North Jersey I naturally recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school followed by singing either God Bless America, My Country Tis of Thee or the National Anthem. But since that time there’s been nothing but endless wars and fiscal irresponsibility so frankly I don’t really care what I chanted as a child and then teenager at 7:50AM
Second, do you have a theory indicating that it would likely be better under one of the divorcees?
Yes, more than a theory but practical experience. Its called FL, and when I emigrated from NJ I was unsure about FL, but its 2023 and its not just a little bit better, its ALOT better. Know what pays for my homes in FL and TN? The taxes I don’t pay the People’s Republic of NJ. My suggestion? Ebay your snowblower and take I95 South until it ends, Walmart carries Perrier here too, I promise 😉
Third, could an individual or a group of individuals also divorce from the div0rcees?
This question goes to the atom of sovereignty. I don’t need to answer that question today with specificity of course. Right now today I would suggest that the atom of sovereignty be the state because the machinery of government exists at the state level already. If you were to say to me that Dade County might secede from FL, well, so be it, I’m not going to invade Miami and napalm Calle Ocho. Obviously there will be red in blue and blue in red, but its very important to have competitive governance.
But what’s more important is to relegate the illegitimate federal regime belongs: the dustbin of history
Jon Murphy
Apr 5 2023 at 4:41pm
To me, that’s a strong argument against national divorce. At least with the US, there is still the ability to move between states freely and there is wide variation in governance between states. Federalism as ebbed to be sure, but it still exists. National divorce would likely destroy the ability of individuals to seek out better lives for themselves given that countries very rarely have anything akin to open borders like we currently have among the Several States.
For example, in the past 6 years, I have lived in NH, VA, MD, MA, NY, NC, and soon LA, all in the search of a better life. And each stop provided a step for me to improve and advance. If there were a national divorce, who knows what limitations would be imposed? Would I have been confined to New England and thus never able to pursue grad school in Virginia? Would I have not been able to escape the high cost of living in Virginia and live in Maryland, thus reducing the debt I had to incur? Would I not have been able to do a postdoc at Syracuse University, which in turn set me up for my job in North Carolina or my new appointment in Louisiana?
There may be arguments for national divorce (although I much more prefer federalism. No point in trading 500 tyrants 500 miles away for 120 tyrants 200 miles away), but the freedom of movement you cite is not one of them. That would disappear.
Craig
Apr 5 2023 at 4:52pm
“At least with the US, there is still the ability to move between states freely”
3 million Canadians in FL (to one degree or another, ie they could be snowbirds) and 500k people from the UK (actually resident full time).
“and there is wide variation in governance between states. ”
The ball of wax, the majority of taxation, is still federal and it kills the Empire dead.
Jon Murphy
Apr 5 2023 at 5:16pm
I don’t know what your response is supposed to mean.
Craig
Apr 5 2023 at 5:23pm
Well you seem to express concern that if MA and LA aren’t in the same political community you might have difficulty moving from MA to LA. So I am pointing out that there are millions of people in FL who are not currently members of this political community who don’t seem to have much problem coming to FL.
Secondly it would unlikely occur by state but rather by blocks of states of course. And given that I’m already in the South what do I care? You know what? I’m going to work hard, retire and move north. <–said no one EVER.
Jon Murphy
Apr 5 2023 at 5:28pm
It happens quite a lot, actually. But that’s neither here nor there.
There’s quite the difference between being a tourist and an immigrant. And I wouldn’t say they have “no problem.” US immigration is extremely costly. Why wouldn’t that change with a national divorce?
Craig
Apr 5 2023 at 5:41pm
“It happens quite a lot, actually. But that’s neither here nor there.”
Alot but only because there are millions of people involved, but proportionally its not close.
“There’s quite the difference between being a tourist and an immigrant. And I wouldn’t say they have “no problem.” US immigration is extremely costly. Why wouldn’t that change with a national divorce?”
Trust me a bargain compared with blue taxation. $1mn cash on the barrel head to move to CA, NY or NJ and I would NOT take the money.
Interstate mobility? At what price?
Imagine postwar Germany, split by the circumstances of war as opposed to a national divorce, would you rather have intra-German mobility across all of the Laender but live under the East German paradigm (they actually would let you move around the DDR) or would you rather be stuck in a German state the size of East Germany but under the West German paradigm (obviously East Germany was smaller)
Bit more extreme but yes, I’d much prefer interstate mobility among only the free states than interstate mobility living in Blue America.
Craig
Apr 5 2023 at 5:49pm
And one last point is that while there is CURRENTLY discrepancies between the states that DO remain material with respect to taxation, ultimately I can point you to many statements by blue state governors, ie former governor Andrew Cuomo bemoaning FL for ‘stealing’ people from NY. Then couple that with the race to the bottom logic employed by liberals in such initiatives as the minimum corporate tax which is obviously on an international stage and long and short of it is that given time they will slowly federalize more and more taxation to prevent tax shopping among the states to prevent escaping from their increasingly confiscatory schemes.
Get an international boundary between you and them asap because they’re hungry.
Jon Murphy
Apr 6 2023 at 9:12am
And there goes your argument about immigration…
None of these points you raise answer the question: how would national divorce change any of that? Given your answers, I am inclined to think national divorce will make these issues worse, in particular because of your comment about tax shopping.
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 6 2023 at 10:33am
Craig: Your Canadian-snowbirds illustration actually contradicts your argument. A Canadian snowbird will be kicked out of Florida if he overstays his six-month visa, and be prohibited from coming back for 10 years. If Florida had seceded (with a crazy, anti-immigration, rightist government), you could not have moved there from NJ, except as a tourist while continuing to pay the NJ income tax. You may reply that now that you are in Florida, this does not matter to you. But it would matter if your preferences change OR if the State of Florida changes.
Craig
Apr 6 2023 at 10:37am
“And there goes your argument about immigration”
I couched it in hyperbolic terms, but there’s no question that there is a flood of people southbound, not northbound. Just at Mets/Marlins opening day and ten thousand people there with ‘Queens South’ shirts on. There’s no enclaves of ex-Floridians living in NYC. There’s only ‘alot’ nominally headed north because there are a fair number of people.
Is interstate mobility worth 56% of your income (all in, local, state, federal)? Or would you prefer 25% of your income (local state ‘confederal’?)but you’d only have interstate mobility in the Southeast? But you’d still be able to come and go to the rest of the country just like any Canadian does today?
Personally I am not interested in interstate mobility in a country that takes more than half my income. [And that’s where the US is headed for increasing numbers of people] I’m not interested in living in a society where the government makes the majority of economic decisions. I’m not worried about the fundamental right of interstate travel in a country that isn’t free. If taxation is a majority of your expenditures (as was the case for me in NJ or as is the case for more than a few in NY, NJ, CA etc) or, as is obviously CURRENTLY the case for many (even in FL), that taxation is the single largest expense you face because you can’t escape the Feds, 4X housing costs, AND looking around all you see are deficits, $30tn in debt, endless wars and more recently inflation to tax your buying power and you realize looking forward that they absolutely have to take MORE and I might ALOT more, well let’s just say you should stand forewarned.
“None of these points you raise answer the question: how would national divorce change any of that?”
It stops creeping socialism, it ends the empire, it stops the debt machine.
“Given your answers, I am inclined to think national divorce will make these issues worse, in particular because of your comment about tax shopping.”
Well my point is that if there is no national divorce, the blues are going to stop tax shopping. The vehicle will be cooperative federalism and you see that with expanded Medicaid. States can opt out, but the people of the state can’t opt out of the taxation. You see they can’t have that, it would be, from their pov, a ‘race to the bottom’ and they have already begun to address it. The push will be to slowly homogenize taxation because after all we can’t have FL stealing people from NY
“There may be arguments for national divorce (although I much more prefer federalism.”
Well, I actually would have prefered ACTUAL federalism too, but here’s the thing, the blues want democratic socialism, so yeah, I’d rather have a limited government of enumerated powers, but that’s over. Federalism is dead, its been dead for my entire lifetime. It has a few vestigial organs but the reality is that there is very little NOT within the scope of the General Welfare clause (which isn’t even supposed to be a source of independent substantive power) OR the broadly interpreted commerce clause where growing something in your backyard impacts interstate commerce whether by how it impacts your demand or the ‘total incidence test’ which essentially means that if it COULD flow in interstate commerce, that’s enough.
And the culture is such that national divorce is genuinely necessary. The lobster really is slowly and surely boiling and I experienced that in North Jersey/NYC — ‘just a little bit more‘ –And that little bit more slowly added up to 56% of income, local, state and federal and they’re out there now pushing for more.
Craig
Apr 6 2023 at 10:57am
“If Florida had seceded (with a crazy, anti-immigration, rightist government), you could not have moved there from NJ”
When I traveled to Ontario, Quebec and Victoria, BC I traveled there as an American like I was going to another state. Why should I expect a post-national divorce FL be any different.
“except as a tourist while continuing to pay the NJ income tax.”
Speak no evil. And I still have to pay them! $6700 last year!
“You may reply that now that you are in Florida, this does not matter to you.”
Sure it does, my brother remains there, right?
“But it would matter if your preferences change OR if the State of Florida changes.”
That’s why I have one foot in the Bahamas!
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 6 2023 at 3:06pm
Craig: I think that if you try to go and work in Canada, you will see what’s the difference with leaving NJ to work in Florida. And try to have a dual residence in Tennessee and Ontario. Moreover, Florida might become even worse than Canada once it has seceded. Immigrants from NJ might be treated like those from Mexico (or pay a special tax on their importing their labor services into Florida and competing with native Floridians).
Jon Murphy
Apr 6 2023 at 6:32pm
I’m with Pierre here, Craig. You seem to be operating under the assumption that nothing would change under a national divorce. Just you’d not have to pay federal taxes anymore. There’s really no reason to believe that’s true. I think you’ve grossly underestimated the costs and overestimated the benefits.
Not to mention: all this assumes a national divorce happens peacefully. But what if it doesn’t, like in the 1860s? If we had the same death rate as the Civil War, you’re talking 6 million Americans dead. I’d be willing to bet that’s a low estimate, too, as it doesn’t adjust for more destructive war equipment or count civilian deaths.
Would that death toll be worth it to save a few bucks in taxes? I think there are better ways.
Craig
Apr 6 2023 at 6:46pm
“I’m with Pierre here, Craig. You seem to be operating under the assumption that nothing would change under a national divorce.”
The sun will come out tomorrow!
“Just you’d not have to pay federal taxes anymore.”
Kills the empire dead.
“There’s really no reason to believe that’s true. I think you’ve grossly underestimated the costs and overestimated the benefits.”
$30tn in debt, perpetual state of armed conflict. They’re the threat and its chronic.
The DoI states: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
This isn’t a wily nily conviction. This is DECADES in the making.
“Not to mention: all this assumes a national divorce happens peacefully. But what if it doesn’t, like in the 1860s?”
It ISN’T 1860 and now the precedent is set by Scotland and Quebec, our common law cousins. Nobody is saying slavery and nobody is going to war to ‘preserve the union’ — if Scotland or Quebec had voted out England and Canada would not have invaded. Its actually unthinkable now.
Its a win/win CA can do the Swedish thing.
Laurentian
Apr 5 2023 at 3:38pm
Question for opponents of the national divorce: if enough people don’t believe in the founding principles then how can they be restored? And why would the politicians in power who benefit from not following the constitution decide to follow it and willingly give up power?
And isn’t it awfully nationalistic to claim the existence of founding principles? This is a claim that American is more than just a landmass under a central government and that there is some old national character that can not be changed by public opinion, elite opinion, laws, court rulings or even constitutional amendments!
Laurentian
Apr 5 2023 at 4:03pm
Also why haven’t classical libetals addressed the obvious inability of classical liberalism to replicate itself, a phenomenon that happened in the late 19th Century and is happening today to neoliberalism? There was a massive increase in living standards yet liberalism still collapsed and socialism and Communism are more popular than ever despite their complete failure to live to their ideals.
Why does prosperity produce so many depressed, lonely, authoritarian and socialist malcontents? Shouldn’t it be the opposite?
Also liberal democracy empowers various groups that thrive on negativity and emphasizing how terrible everything is: the political class (not easy to get elected, unseat an incumbent or pass new laws by saying how awesome everything is), the media class (“everything is fine” doesn’t sell or lead to social change), the intellectual class (can’t critique the status quo without being extremely negative about the status quo), the artist class (can’t challenge the hypocrisies of society with positivity) or the activist class (things are fine doesn’t get people on the streets).
Jon Murphy
Apr 5 2023 at 4:33pm
Really? That’s news to me. Despite some recent ebbing, liberalism remains the single most widespread philosophy in the world.
Further, liberalism continues to rise time and time again, defying the predictions of doomers. For a very brief overview, see my article here.
Laurentian
Apr 5 2023 at 4:54pm
Well why is it ebbing despite massive increases in living standards? Shouldn’t sustained prosperity made it even more popular? Even you acknowledge that the World Wars and socialism occurred after the great liberal victories of the 19th century.
If anything it seems that illiberalism is what produces liberalism. Perhaps we need sustained poverty, tyranny and war to convince people that those things are once again bad?
And just because liberalism survived before doesn’t mean it will always survive. Freedom of Speech being racist and hurtful to physical and mental well-being is a quite novel argument that uses liberalism’s own values against it.
Jon Murphy
Apr 5 2023 at 5:15pm
In a perfect world with perfect knowledge, yes. But in reality, there’s no reason to think so. People make mistakes all the time.
Although, given the USSR, and many other socialist/communists states, are gone while liberal societies flourish and with people clamoring at their borders to get in, I’d argue that liberalism is popular. Poll results are ephemeral; when the rubber hits the road, people choose liberalism.
Whatever you say, Moff Tarkin.
True. Which is why I believe in a constant defense of liberalism, even when unpopular. But liberalism does have one significant advantage: it avoids the Ouroboros problem. Many illiberal ideologies descend into purity spirals and they end up cannibalizing themselves. By actively reducing their size to fewer and fewer members, they eventually collapse for fade away as they are unable (and often unwilling) to maintain a critical mass of support. Liberalism avoids purity spirals. The liberal naturally finds them abhorrent.
Laurentian
Apr 5 2023 at 5:31pm
If you call massive deficits, inflation and increasing authoritarianism flourishing…
Also liberal societies are far more enamored with the USSR than ever before.
Covid suggests otherwise.
English Civil War and French Revolution say hi.
Monte
Apr 5 2023 at 5:42pm
I hope and pray you’re right, Jon. Socialism’s trend here in the U.S. is eye-catching. And let’s not forget what Mark Twain said:
Robert Bork’s book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, is beginning to look more prophetic.
Jon Murphy
Apr 6 2023 at 9:04am
I’d consider existing for more than a century flourishing.
It depends on the timeframe. Americans put up with lockdowns for a while, but pretty quickly started to ignore all the mandates and pushing. Same with Europe.
I said “avoids” not “immune to.” But even those two cases help my case. Liberalism ultimately triumphed in England and France.
Jon Murphy
Apr 6 2023 at 9:09am
I agree, Monte. There are worrying notes. I am certainly not unconcerned about the rampant rise of illiberalism in America by both the right and the left. But I am also an optimist and a strong believer in humanity. History indicates that doomsdayers tend to be incorrect. Illiberalism may win in the short run, but it tends to be short-lived for the reasons I discuss above.
Victory of liberalism over illiberalism is not guaranteed. Nothing ever is. That’s my point to Laurentain: What they write off as a dead idea is anything but. Illiberalism’s victory is not guaranteed if history is any indication.
Craig
Apr 6 2023 at 1:39pm
“History indicates that doomsdayers tend to be incorrect.”
I’m not predicting that Snake Plisken is going to need to glide into 1WTC to save the President, I’d suggest TODAY, NYC is unacceptable, its not East Germany but its not liberal as you define liberal, its a social democracy. Government, government, City government, borough government and even more government,
“Illiberalism may win in the short run, but it tends to be short-lived for the reasons I discuss above.”
Spoken like a much younger man. I’m 50, I have maybe 10 good economic years left.
The Soviet Union fell, that’s great, Cuba and North Korea?? When?
Keynes says in the long run we’re all dead. Very true, I NEED NOW. My life is now.
Jon Murphy
Apr 6 2023 at 6:37pm
Spoken like a selfish man. One who would trade everything, destroy the very foundations of liberalism, so that he can have a little bit of pleasure
Craig
Apr 6 2023 at 7:12pm
“Spoken like a selfish man. One who would trade everything, destroy the very foundations of liberalism, so that he can have a little bit of pleasure”
Uh, no I would break the political bonds that connect the remnants of liberalism with the forces that would extinguish it.
FL is liberal, NY isn’t.
Craig
Apr 6 2023 at 7:24pm
You’re specifically saying: “Illiberalism may win in the short run”
My point I need liberalism to win NOW.
I’m not advocating the destr[uction of] the very foundations of liberalism.
Bad faith comment. You’re willfully misconstruing what I wrote.
Jon Murphy
Apr 5 2023 at 5:18pm
How do you mean? Liberals have always defended freedom of speech regardless of how offensive it may be. One should not go out of their way to be a jerk, but even jerks have that right.
Laurentian
Apr 6 2023 at 10:43pm
Liberals don’t like racism and support increasing physical and mental well-being. They never thought that these arguments would be used to justify censorship and that they would be attacked as racists who support physical and mental violence for defending freedom of speech.
You do know the left considers the classical liberals to be “jerks”?
Liberals have a long ugly history of supporting authoritarianism against “reactionaries” only to have it backfire catastrophically on them. John Lilburne supported using the Act of Attainder against Strafford and wanted Oliver Cromwell to take over the Parliamentary Army only to have Cromwell arrest him and his Leveller friends. Paine and Wollstonecraft defended the French Revolution from Burke only to see the Jacobins who loathed them come to power. Or Danton supporting the creation of the Revolutionary Tribunal only to be executed by it. Or the extremely appalling behavior of the classical liberals during the Popish Plot or the Kulturkampf.
Laurentian
Apr 6 2023 at 10:52pm
I don’t know the fact that lockdowns happened so quickly and had so much support (even among libertarians and classical liberals) shows just how easy it is to impose authoritarianism. Claim an “emergency” and appeal to the “New Normal” and “the Science” and disparage the opposition as ignorant bigoted reactionaries and you can do pretty much anything.
Also the lockdowns increased the Ratchet of Government control and the deleterious social, economic, political and cultural effects will only further undermine a free society.
Craig
Apr 6 2023 at 4:56pm
“Moreover, Florida might become even worse than Canada once it has seceded.”
Don’t New York My Florida
I’m not scared one iota of FL leaving the union, I’m scared of it remaining in the union.
#beautifulfla
Jon Murphy
Apr 6 2023 at 6:35pm
There goes your argument about freedom of movement
Craig
Apr 6 2023 at 6:51pm
No it doesn’t. 500k British people are resident in FL and to the extent they aren’t naturalized they can’t vote. If NY and FL aren’t in the US, NYers can come, but they can’t vote. Well, at least for 5 years if they want to change citizenship (that’s about what it takes to get US citizenship now +/- after getting permanent residency)
Craig
Apr 6 2023 at 6:59pm
Nevertheless while the phrase ‘Don’t NY my FL’ does immediately serve the context of former NYers coming to FL and then voting like they might in NY, the second context is about preventing the Democrats from flipping the entire country blue.
So when AOC goes to TX and says that turning TX blue is inevitable (she might be right or wrong as the case may be there, but that is beside the point. ‘If we flip Texas, we flip the country‘
They’re telling you the goal. I don’t want to flip the country red. I want CA to be CA and for it to be blue and I want to FL to be FL and for it to red.
I lived it, I emigrated from it already.
Walt Cody
Apr 7 2023 at 4:40pm
“They were right, my dear, all those voices were right
And still are; this land is not the sweet home that it looks
Nor its peace the historical calm of a site
Where something was settled once and for all.”
—W.H.Auden, “In Praise of Limestone.”
Liberalism, as I think we all mean it, has never, anywhere, been “settled once and for all” but has to be repeatedly won after it’s been lost. We are now in the process of losing it.
Craig
Apr 8 2023 at 10:51am
My sense is that the US govt is like that middle aged alcoholic chain smoker who, when told these things will eventually prematurely lead to his death, continues to ignore the risks. One day we’ll all wake up and find out that the diagnosis is lung cancer and cirrhosis and we have a week to leave. The problem isn’t just the US govt of course because the other problem is that its deep seated in the culture now.