I blog from Ann Arbor, Michigan, where the group I direct, the Campus Leadership Program, is hosting a retreat for conservative students. The weekend event follows seven lectures in four days in three states. My lecture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison highlighted the week. A few liberals in the overflow crowd looked upon me, mouths agape, the way I stare at zebras at the zoo (Could zebras be more common than conservatives in Madison?).

My week on the road ends today. I'm excited about introducing young people to one of my favorite pieces of writing, The Law, in a book discussion at the retreat. The basic point of the slim volume is made in a few short lines: "But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." Frederic Bastiat's ability to make a complicated point simple is perhaps the best explanation for The Law's enduring popularity a century-and-a-half after it was written. A majority of current government activity would fail Bastiat's litmus test.

The aforementioned passage is the most quoted from The Law for good reason. But since that's everyone's favorite, I thought I'd highlight a more overlooked line: "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?" That's the question that planners and do-gooders should have to answer before embarking upon any one of their numerous schemes.

Dan,

In Plato's Republic, Socrates discusses all the forms of government that man has created, and why they are flawed. While debating Thrasymachus and company, Socrates talks about Oligarchy, Authoritarianism, and yes, Democracy. What these men considered, "rule by the masses". It seems that men like Plato and Socrates, intellectuals and academics in their day, insisted that the common man's rule would be a disaster.

To me, I take from this passage that Plato thought that a city-state (or Polis), would probably best be ruled by a small group of wise men, because it seems he generally distrusted the thoughts, actions, and motives of "the great masses".

Plato constitutes one of these do-gooders. He actually never comes out and says which would be the best of all forms of governments, but merely points out the flaws of all the existing ones. In his scheme, he definitely is aiming for his fellow countrymen to think about the forms of rule, but the underlying theme hints that only men like himself are truly capable of ruling, because only they can see the flaws in their own systems.

Although Plato is capable of seeing the flaws, this does not mean that he is above the rest, or infallible. Modern-day intellectual liberals often remind me of Plato. They point out the flaws in the system, but rarely come up with solutions. They are content, as it seems, not to help fix the problems, but only to do so much, as to ensure that they continue to hold power over those who they oppress. They theorize, speak academically, and pretend that their superior intellect can save the world.

Perhaps this is why we see the globalist perspective in so many liberals; a perspective that sadly, has befallen our President. My point is, men that hold power for too long start to think they are invincible, indespensible, and vital to the well-being of their respective systems. They are blinded by their do-good mentality, and try to do good for all, instead of letting men do good for themselves.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?"

The divide between the common man and the "organizers," ideally, is not one of good and bad, but of wise and ignorant. The sad fact of the matter is that most people are too stupid to govern themselves. Aristotle or Aquinas as monarch is preferable to "the first fifty names out of the Boston phone book."

In my humble, elitist opinion.

Brad,

Socrates might have been talking about a pure democracy, I however, am not. Although I think in a pure democracy, if it was possible, able and wise men would rise up to lead the other men who were not as educated or enlightened as themselves.

The problem that I have with "wise men", is that they often decide that one size fits all. This is a destructive system. This is why the founders stressed Federalism in the Constitution; the the powers not delegated in that document (and there are really not many powers in it) could be left up to the people of the States. Sadly, liberals have caused the Federal government to grow beyond what it was meant to be, and thus, we have a few bodies in a four-mile radius, deciding what is best for the whole country. Doesn't this remind you of why America broke away from England...an island ruling a continent from thousands of miles away?

The values and beliefs in California (the majority, at least) are different than those of Ohio. Why not let the people decide for themselves if they want Abortion on demand, gay rights, prostitution, and the lot? Let them have their cake and eat it too. Eventually, they will decide what is good for their own respective communities, and what is not. The power of choice is scary, isn't it?

A few wise men can cause the whole of the people a great deal of problems.

Defending Bastiat against Brad the elistist...
"The sad fact of the matter is that most people are too stupid to govern themselves." Brad here makes a claim well beyond the pessimism of the classics about the demos; he are claiming that the majority of men are "natural slaves" in Aristotle's sense. A little insane.

Most of the knowledge that a person needs to live a basically good life consists of (1) the general law/customs of society, and (2) details of their own situations in life. Government planners cannot be more wise than the individual in these ways. (This is related to Hayek's argument about the distribution, and non-centralizability, of information.) In other words, micromanagement is always a mistake.

Brad,

Why do you suggest splitting goodness from wisdom? I know someone can be "good" in a humble way and not necessarily wise, but can the truly wise be bad?

Brigid:

Perhaps my language was too extreme. I did not mean to suggest that common men were "natural slaves," incapable of governing their own mundane affairs (e.g., where to live, what to eat, who to marry, what occupation to have, etc.). These choices, set within a framework of law, ought to be left to the individual. The framework of law, however, should be left to the wise.

This, of course, could be accomplished democratically to a certain degree. Take the 17th Amendment: a filter was placed between the masses and the election of Senators. Such a tiered system allows the people to elect men they believe to be good, and then those men elect other men that they believe to be good. The result is an elevated notion of what kind of man is good. The goal, however it is accompished, is to place the masses under the rule of the elite.

Brian:

Quite right. True wisdom involves goodness, as my choice of Aristotle and Aquinas implies. There have been many brilliant men, "clever" men, who used their talents for evil. These seem to be the primary target of Bastiat's claim.

There are also many good and simple people who, were they to lead, would make serious errors because they lack the knowledge to govern.

I agree that "organizers" (e.g., Marxists) are often less desirable than the rule of good and simple people. But the best regime is the rule of the few best, aristocracy in the true sense.

Brad: With the simple distinction between democracy and liberty, your original attack against the Bastiat quote has disappeared instantly! You claimed, in disagreement with him, that men should not be free because they are too stupid to govern their own lives. This is an anti-liberty position.

But now have now granted, with Bastiat, that men should be left to govern their own lives. So all your rhetoric amounts to nothing but an anti-democratic position -- which is hardly groundbreaking in conservative circles.

Brigid:

Not quite. I am angling for a division of liberty into what might be called "non-ethical" liberty, e.g., the liberty to eat at McDonald's or Burger King, and "ethical" liberty, e.g., the liberty to abort or spare an unborn child. With respect to the former, I am a libertarian; with respect to the latter, I am a totalitarian.

Take the stem-cell debate. The common citizen, not to mention our president, cannot be expected to reach the correct conclusions. Therefore, neither they, nor their direct representatives (who are as a rule their intellectual equals) should be allowed to make decisions concerning stem-cell research. The same is true, more or less, of most ethical issues, be it homosexuality or the redistribution of wealth.

Brad's argument has some plausibility because in some situations it will work, in the short term. But even Plato realized that the philosopher king form of government would decay. The only long-term solution is to create a governmental structure based on the principle of subsidiarity, that is, a structure that allows the people to learn from their own experiences and from others' experiences, and then trust the people.

Even that most elitist of founders, Alexander Hamilton, believed this. In Federalist 84 he wrote of liberty of the press: "What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

Let me add that Brad's mistake is a natural one. Now that the progressives have destroyed most of the institutions that were built to protect subsidiarity, the people look especially stupid.

But anybody would look stupid in the role the progressives have created for the people. As Madison put it "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." In a bad organizational structure the wisdom of the people will never be manifest. Others can try to move to a shorter term solution, like elitism or libertarianism. Fighting for a return to the republic might be quixotic, it might be a longshot, but then again it might be the only play we have.

What a can of worms I have opened up here! Brad, I believe docmcg has elequently elaborated on some of my thoughts.

In it's most simple form, my argument basically says that ordinary men in assemblies (or representative democracy) are capable of brilliant things. I don't think that all of our founders were the best and the brightest academics of their day (although some of them may have been), but they came together and drafted a brilliant document (well, mostly Madison, but you get the point), that still survives today.

And even the best and brightest like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, knew that contraints needed to be put on men like themselves in order to protect the welfare of many. Our system is not so difficult to understand, that only the elite can do so. The minute those of us who are politicaly and historically astute become elitist in our thoughts, is the minute tyranny begins.

There is no such thing as a Philosopher-King; these are men who read too much, debate too often, take too few drinks, and don't get enough sex.

1) Notice the irony: the things that the elitist Brad thinks should be illegal are more likely to be illegal under a more democratic system than ours. Homo-ness in schools, contraception, adultry, ubiquitous porn, quickie divorce, and abortion, of course, are all made "legal" by the elitist elements of our government, against in general the will of the commoners.

2) The only people with the moral authority to make decisions regarding the issues Brad list are people who would and could not ever be in positions of political power. The problem with totalitarianism is exactly what Bastiat says: the only people you will every get into political power will suffer from the same fallibility as normal people.

But Brad: Can't we find a position other than libertarianism or elite totalitarianism by the virtuous wise? Traditionally, it was called the rule of law.

brigid...well said. Is our system as easy as majority rules? I mean, if it was that easy, things would be great, but the problem lies in the institutions that we've created (i.e. the Supreme Court).

As a body that took the liberty of reviewing constitutional matters by force, they have been enacting laws for decades that goes against the general will of the people. Further, they have no accountability, and are appointed by an elected official, FOR LIFE!

So, if i'm to get this correct, an elected official has the power to appoint someone who will make judicial decisions that will affect the country for decades? This is representative democracy, but nonetheless, the system is flawed. These judges resemble the appointed members of "The Robe" in pre-Revolutionary France. If we're going to talk about elitism, we should start in places that we created.

Although we live in a democracy, a few powerful individuals control us.

Brigid:

Notice another irony: the "elitist elements" you refer to are continually placed in power by the very people you are claiming should rule.

A majority of citizens think abortion should be legal. A majority of citizens think homosexuality should be normal. A majority of citizens think that wealth should be redistributed.

The rule of law? Laws made by men, right? And which men would those be?

Brad:

1) Which peice of legislation or referendum has ever been responsible for implementing those "majority views" as you call them? Answer: None. These have been forced upon us by progressive judicial elites.

2) And those elitist elements are not placed in power by the people according to our constitutional system. No one gave the SC the power to legalize abortion.

3) Besides, none of those things are truly majority positions, depending on how you ask the question. Abortion is a great example. The majority are much more conservative morally than our elitist judicial overlords regarding restrictions on abortion. And the majority in several states are overwhelmingly anti-abortion. Even moreso with gay marriage. The majority don't think homo-ness is normal or shold be taught about in kindergarden. These are all elite-meddler positions.

Your idea of rule by elites is a form of putting your eggs in one basket. It is practically impossible to get people with actual moral _authority_ to occupy your elite office with totalitarian _power_. Layered and diffused power is much much safer.

Brad,

To be totally honest man, you are like a battered woman who keeps crawling back to her abusive husband with a new reason of why its her fault.

Brigid continued my thought process with the SC. What gave them the power of Judicial Review? Not the Constitution. John Marshall did. Elitist men like Marshall thought that only he and a chosen few were intellectual enough to interpret a couple dozen articles and ten ammendments. What about the rest of us? Are we just a bunch of dopes who should tip-toe around these tyrants and clean their toilets?

What makes our system terrible, is that when we have no law to reference a current problem, we operate on precedent. WHAT? "Well...ummm...in 1887, we did this, so i'm ganna base this ruling on that precedent". ARE WE OUT OF OUR MINDS?

Not too long ago, in a public appearance, SC Justice Kennedy was asked, "what if you're opinion doesn't allign with the Constitution, or past precedent"? His answer was, "I simply look around the world to find a judicial ruling similar to my opinion, and base it on that." What's next, Kofi Annan on the bench, interpreting Geneva convention statutes in Constitutional matters?

Half of these nobles don't even care about the law or Constitution (Madison just rolled over in his grave).

Just a clarification prompted by Christopher J. Doyle's last post. John Marshall only had a small part in giving us judicial review. Certainly Hamilton and even Jefferson felt that some of what we now call judicial review was implicit in the concept of a written constitution. However, all the leaders of that generation (including Marshall, at least formally) expected the judicial authority to recognize its subservience to the will of "the people of the states." How that will is gathered and expressed is a problem too deep for this post but the concepts of judicial review and of precedent when properly understood are part of the solution to that problem and are dangerous only out of that context.

The current practice should be called by its right name. It is not "judicial review": it is "judicial supremacy"--a belief by the legal, academic, and media elites that the court's opinion is the highest legitimate authority even when it is not subservient to "the will of the people of the states."

I think that's pretty accurate.

Hey Road Dog, how about becoming Blog Dog. Kanye just won a grammy! Patriots keep Eric Mangini as D coach! Macy's and Filene's might merege! obi juan called us all Injuns! anyways, there's not much to blog about, but it's the weekend and we need more postings . . . Velvet Revolver are going to partake in a mass-rendition of "Across the Universe" on the Grammys tonight and John Mayer hopefully will get mauled by a bengal tiger while performing.

Tiny Elvis,

How ironic is it that I read your comments exactly when these idiots are butchering the Beatles' song?

Why can't they just all join hands and do a revival of "We are the World"? Bring Michael Jackson in, some little boys, and display some real sodomy on stage!

After that, Bruce Springsteen can all inform us that our taxes are currently being raised to help the victims of Tsunami.

These people make me sick...oh, let's forget about AIDS for one night, and help the Asians...they are dying faster, right?

Chalk that up to flynnfiles.com bringing us together in real-time. I share your sentiments on the performance tonight. I thought they were playing sesame street's "one of these things just doesn't belong here" game when I saw Tim McGraw up there with he rest of them. That was until I saw Brian Wilson. What a srtrange bird. he always has that "first day of school picture" awkwardness to him. Slash should have been given a solo.

Frankly, I'd like to again extend my thanks for the wonderful, fun, and educational weekend, Mr. Flynn.

I'll admit first of all that I have not engaged in a discussion of political philosophy in some time and had not enjoyed a book discussion of this high quality within any recent memory.

Discussions of legal plunder always have great capacity to incite one to think before or after they ignite great anger; social security, taxes, and welfare grants are ultimately redistribution of wealth that has recieved value based on the methd of accumulation, and our hard work has suddenly become spread to the winds when it comes to benefits.

I'm also touched everytime that Davy Crockett story comes up. Despite what people say about his passing and the circumstance surroudning his defense of the Alamo, I still consider him a hero and in part that particular incident in Congress alone is one of the reasons.

The Law is an amazing book. Quick read.

Side note- instead of having "retreats" the CLP should host Advances. Liberalism has advanced since we declared "Standing athwart history, yelling Stop" it's time to move.

docmcg,

You might even call it oligarchy. I tend to.