George Mason University's
History News Network
New entry

Liberty & Power: Group Blog



Protagoras
Like Reason magazine's Gene Healy, I too have been interested, although only mildly, in what the politics would be of Geena Davis's character in the new ABC drama,"Commander in Chief." I assumed her politics would be an unthinking left-wingism, like every"good" politician portrayed by Hollywood before her has been: businesses are evil, businessmen are pathologically selfish, the government is good and must save us, the poor are poor only because they have been exploited by people who have had life's gifts undeservedly bestowed upon them, etc.

So far my interest in finding out whether this latest incarnation of a Hollywood president fits the pattern has not been great enough to actually move me to watch the show. But I was interested to see that Healy's main criticism concerns the show's apparent premise that the American president has no limits to her power, other than what she can get away with. So, no statutory, constitutional, natural-right, or other limits: only budgetary limits and the constraints, malleable as they are, of popular opinion. Healy is worried about the long-term ramifications of a presidency that an increasing number of citizens view, though not explicitly, as imperial.

I share Healy's worries, and I fear for the future of an America in which people believe, as my college students frequently profess, that the government owns all the land and property anyway--so there aren't really any property rights after all, but, really, what's the big deal? It requires a surprising, and disconcerting, amount of effort to bring students even remotely to understand what the American revolutionaries were exercized about. Sure, no one likes the English, they say, and everybody knows that monarchies are 'stupid'; that's why we have an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving congress and presidency instead. (It makes no sense to me either, but that is essentially what many of my students seem to believe.)

But the idea that all we have done in the English-speaking world is exchange one divine ruler for another is an old one. Herbert Spencer wrote an essay in 1884 called"The Great Political Superstition," part of his excellent The Man Versus the State. In this essay Spencer argues that the former"great political superstition," now (in 1884) universally mocked, was the notion of the 'divine right of kings'; we cannot now even imagine what heights of benightedness could have possessed earlier minds to subscribe to such sheer and utter nonense. Yet, Spencer argues, all that the current enlightenment on which we congratulate ourselves has gained us is the erection of a new divine ruler: parliament. How right Spencer was, and how much truer is his claim for Americans today. For verily I say unto thee, what, truly, lies outside the ambit of the power and the de facto authority of today's American federal government? Onto what areas of human life may it not intrude? Where, I ask, would its presence be regarded as trespass because beyond its moral authority?

If the answer is, as I suspect,"nowhere," and if most people in America believe, as I suspect, that the federal government's job is to address and alleviate all felt ills of its citizens, then it is quite understandable that the calls for liberty around which the American revolutionaries rallied seem utterly alien to many Americans today. And that does indeed make America's future uncertain.

[Originally posted on Proportional Belief.]

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 13:35


Alvaro Vargas Llosa (Guest Blogger)
More and more companies and non-profit organizations seem to spy on their own employees. Even institutions of a classical liberal or libertarian persuasion do it, just as they rant about government espionage. Everywhere, bosses seem to stick their noses in their employees´ e-mails, open their letters, listen to their telephone conversations, and inquire about their private lives behind their backs.

This repugnant practice strikes me as a confirmation of what Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek argued many years ago. In Bureaucracy , Mises explained that the prevailing statist system was helping turn private enterprises into bureaucratic organizations that replicate the modus operandi of government. For his part, Hayek argued in Law, Legislation, and Liberty that the tendency of private firms and associations to operate in the"organizational" mode-i.e. under top down arrangements geared to the pursuit of a deliberate goal-was debilitating the social foundation of the free society. More and more people are becoming used to operating under the rules of"organization" as opposed to the rules of the"spontaneous order", even though, paradoxically, these private companies or associations sell and buy in the market place.

From a classical liberal perspective, of course, as long as arrangements between employers and employees are voluntary bosses can do what they like with their companies and organizations, including snooping. Friends tell me, furthermore, it is perfectly legal for organizations and companies to spy on their employees.

But it is not the legal dimension of this that concerns me. What concerns me is what-borrowing the title of a marvellous essay by Albert J. Nock--I would call doing the right thing. As we know, the history of civilization is in many ways the history of learning to do the right thing regardless of, and often against, what the law said. Now, I am not arguing that the law should interfere. If we allow the government and the courts to prohibit and punish spying in the workplace, we will open the doors to all sorts of dangerous forms of interference with private arrangements. The point is not a legal one. It is an ethical one. A lot more harm than good is done by employers who snoop and spy on employees. The overall effect on society is to further weaken that most vulnerable and precious little creature, the sphere of the individual. Spying by invading a person´s personal communications in the workplace is a way to exercise too much power over that person. The fact that the employee might reluctantly accept those rules does not diminish the corrosive effect this practice has on the overall fabric of the open society by encouraging mistrust, the overreach of one of the parties to a voluntary transaction (in this case an employer-employee contract) much beyond the realm of what is necessary for the fulfilment of that transaction, and laying down precedents for other types of invasions of the individual sphere. Trust plays an important role in today´s society--the great majority of our transactions and exchanges are impersonal due to the complexity of modern life. Snooping and spying in the workplace is a great way to erode it.

Quite sickening, really.


Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 13:36


Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]

Happy (Celtic) New Year!

My talk"They Saw It Coming: The 19th-Century Libertarian Critique of Fascism," delivered at the Mises Institute Conference on Fascism, is now available in three different formats:


Prepare to embark on a multimedia antifascist experience!

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 19:13