"Two centuries ago, Tocqueville wrote:
There was a time in Europe in which the law, as well as the consent of the people, clothed kings with a power almost without limits. But almost never did it happen that they made use of it.True. The king was an absolute tyrant — in theory. But in practice he was in his palace hundreds of miles away, and for the most part you got on with your life relatively undisturbed. As Tocqueville wrote:
Although the entire government of the empire was concentrated in the hands of the emperor alone, and although he remained, in time of need, the arbiter of all things, the details of social life and of individual existence ordinarily escaped his control.But what would happen, he wondered, if administrative capability were to evolve to make it possible "to subject all of his subjects to the details of a uniform set of regulations"? That moment has now arrived in much of the western world, including America... — and the machinery of bureaucracy barely pauses to scoff: In an age of mass communication and computer records, the screen blips for the merest nano-second, and your gun rights disappear. The remorseless, incremental annexation of "individual existence" by technologically all-pervasive micro-regulation is a profound threat to free peoples. But do we have the will to resist it?"
Most people would reflexively ridicule the notion that we were freer when kings sat all-powerful on their thrones, but not so writes Mark Steyn.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, sir, what are you trying to say with this sentence? That Mr. Steyn says that most people would not reflexively ridicule said notion? :-)
That is not quite what he says.
Although absolutism wasn't the only aspect – in theory, if you will – of classical monarchy, to put it briefly, Mr. Steyn must be commended for this perspective.
Thank you, sir, for bringing it to our attention.
I think a large part of this is because people today confuse "freedom" (which they take to be license) with "independence". True, you did not have the same "freedoms" back then that you have now, but with the government being essentially the king it by and large stayed out of your business, being neither a help nor a hinderance and thus people were more independent. People today think they are free because they can say anything about anyone, carry on all sorts of perverse actions and vote on this or that but all the while they become less and less independent as the government "takes care" of them. True, I can make fun of the President if I like, mock Christianity and buy pornography but I need a permit to build a deck behind my house, need a permit to hunt on my own property, need a permit to sell apples by the roadside, need a permit to drive a car I bought on a road I paid for, need a permit to sell alcohol in a bar I needed a permit to build in a neighborhood that required another permit plus I still have the government telling me I cannot allow smoking inside and taxing me half to death when I do in my own home. In some places the government even tells you how much water your privy should use! That is not independence and I certainly would not call it freedom.
ReplyDeleteMy meaning is that I disagree with those who think we lived under tyranny before the advent of democracy, or even parliament. For the most part, people got on with their lives without ever coming in contact with government.
ReplyDeleteMy meaning is that I disagree with those who think we lived under tyranny before the advent of democracy, or even parliament.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we're very much in disagreement over that, sir.
A mostly correct post, I'd say, and I commend you for it. However, I politely disagree about 'gun rights'. I believe a subject of Her Majesty, or a citizen of the United States, or whatever, have the privilege to firearms, not a right to them. Some will say that you need a right to your own self-defense. Perhaps this is true, but how often are guns used for self-defense these days? And how often are they used for either hunting or crime? You can defend yourself with just about anything, truth be told. As I see it, guns are a privilege the people have, and certain people prove themselves unworthy of such a privilege. And because it is a privilege, not a right, it can be taken from those who abuse it.
ReplyDeleteWell, just my two pence.
Cheers,
Gladstone
Where I live it would take at least half an hour for any police to reach me if I called them for help. I have also never had to use a gun for self-defense because usually the sight of it is enough to discourage anyone from trying anything. My .45 has saved my life more than once without my ever having to use it. As for it being a right or a privilege, it is a right in my country but in every country I am aware of the government can suspend the rights of individuals if there is a good reason (such is why convicted criminals cannot vote).
ReplyDeleteGovernment interference tends to be more complex in reality. The issue, I mean. To carry on from what was said earlier, it is all very well to argue that you should not need a permit to build a patio in your back yard, but would you take the same decision when your next door neighbours decide to build 6 story apartment blocks overshadowing said patio, and move in 40 migrant families apiece or some such?
ReplyDeleteShould you be able to demolish a historic building centuries old simply because you purchased the property recently?
I sya this not to criticise anyone here, just to illustrate that government and when it should or should not get involved is a far more complex than most people realise.