I cannot but wonder, as I lie here reading the hugely influential Cato letters (written 1720-1723), what would become of Mr. Trenchard and Mr. Gordon if they had the misfortune of being alive today, or the imprudence to write today. I doubt that the rest of the men who founded Liberalism would fare better. And I'm not here referring to the fact that they were probably all incorrigible racists. Yes, the 18th century, as well as nearly all of the men who forwarded liberal ideas were; but that's an old story. So, none of them much fancied black people. Big deal. Hardly blogworthy...
Rather, what interests me is today's liberal practices - and indoctrinations - seem to discourage, to say the very least, opinions held and actions defended by early liberals themselves. Compare, for instance, reactions occasioned by stock market catastrophies - a side note, for those of you who aren't aware: stock markets crash, economies receed. That is what they do. If any man be shocked by this, then he be a retard. When the recent recession occured, John Stwart got mad at Jim Cramer; that was about the extent of it. When the London stock market collapsed in 1720 on account, liberals, like the aformentioned authors, demanded the public execution of the executives of the South Sea Company who inflated stock prices and thus engineered the financial catastrophy. In fact, one of the Cato letters - probably my favourite - is written as a hangman's entreaty to the government for opportunities for the honest exercise of his trade; his little children going hungry, he begs for the work of putting to death the traitorious villains who orchestrated the economic ruin of thousands of Englishmen.
If you knew me, Sir, you would own that I have valuable talents, and am worth your acquaintance. I am particularly possessed of a praiseworthy industry, and an ardent desire of business. In truth, I care not to be idle; and yet it cruelly happens, that I have but one busy day in six weeks, and even then I could do twice as much. Besides, having a tender heart, it really affects me with pity, to be obliged to strangle so many innocents every Sessions; poor harmless offenders, that only commit murders, and break open houses, and rob men of guineas and half crowns; while wholesale plunderers, and mighty rogues of prey, the avowed enemies and hangmen of honesty, trade and truth, the known promoters of villainy, and the merciless authors of misery, want, and general ruin, go on to ride in coaches and six, and to defy a people whom they have made poor and desperate; potent parricides, who have plundered more from this kingdom in six months than all the private thieves and highwaymen ever did, or could do, since the creation. - Letter No. 21 'A Letter from John Ketch, Esq. asserting his Right to the Necks of the over-grown Brokers' March 18, 1721.
Needless to say, such writings are not to be found in today's papers, liberal or otherwise. Why not? Because no one seriously believes any of the tenents of early liberalism, e.g. that the nation consists of a collection of individuals and that that the harming of individual constituents of a nation is in fact the harming of said nation itself? That is probably the case, but that is less along the lines of my thoughts this evening. My primary interest, at this moment, is in a little bit of logic:
Why don't liberals campaign for executions these days? Because it's migty unliberal
The fathers of liberalism campaigned for executions.
Therefore, the fathers of liberalism were mighty unliberal
We have two options: either modern liberalism is the very zenith of liberalism, and it grew up gradually from imperfect foundations or eighteenth-century liberalism was pure, and modern liberals are a bunch of commy-ass pansies.
Since it is unlikely that many people are going to go for the second option (after all, not everyone is as blessed with insight as the present writer: As this is one of those deep observations which very few readers can be supposed capable of making themselves, I have thought proper to lend them my assistance; but this is a favour rarely to be expected in the course of my work. Indeed, I shall seldom or never so indulge him, unless in such instances as this, where nothing but the inspiration with which we writers are gifted, can possibly enable any one to make the discovery. The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling Book I, chapter 5) we must deal with the former: liberalism, presently the very state of perfection, had to employ very unliberal means to get to it's present state. The problem, of course, with this is that liberals have always maintained that the good old 'ends justify the means' argument is no good. Prima facie, then, liberalism cannot justify its own existence. Now that inspires confidence...
No comments:
Post a Comment