Guest Post: The Limits of Democracy – an (the!) answer.

Published by Tom

July 31, 2013

Tom, Thank you for allowing me to respond. You raise a very good question; to which, fortunately, there is a very good, and simple, answer: the natural law!

At the risk of acting like the dinner guest who offends his host, I fear this is why I can not support completely your libertarian outlook, as it neglects the primacy of natural law. There are some laws that are not bad (meaning they do not contradict natural law, such as prohibiting murder), but sadly there are a great many, and in particular recently, that are contrary to the natural law. We are therefore in agreement that these laws are bad laws, although you reject them as a libertarian, and I reject them as they are contrary to the natural law. The fact we are in agreement so often only reinforces the number of bad laws….

It is difficult to swiftly summarise what I mean by natural law, so I will rely on St Thomas Acquinas (with thanks to Wikipedia:

natural law is the rational creature's participation in the eternal law, yet, since human reason can not fully comprehend the eternal law, it needed to be supplemented by revealed divine law; therefore all human or positive laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law is not a law, in the full sense of the word. It retains merely the 'appearance' of law insofar as it is duly constituted and enforced in the same way a just law is, but is itself a 'perversion of law’

Or in my own clumsy words – natural law is grounded in God’s law, so the true measure of a validity of a law is not the libertarian outlook supporting only laws prohibiting violence or fraud; but rather that a valid law must be consistent with natural law, meaning God’s law.

I would also agree with you and extend this to argue that laws made by a democratically elected parliament are not of themselves ‘good’ laws unless they also comply with natural law – therefore democracy does not, of itself, validate a law as ‘good’. The same applies to the common law (when I studied jurisprudence my strong favourite was not realism, but Hayek’s common law theory) which I much prefer to statute.

With that in mind, I think I can answer your question about the Top Gear Act 2013 : Would killing one of the hosts in pursuance of the Act cease to be morally wrong? The answer to the question is a resounding "no". As you state, that is the answer you need, and (I think) you know it to be right. This leads me to make two bold suggestions which may offend my host – you know it to be right because, ultimately, we are created to seek and require the natural law (which also suggests or proves the existence of God), and secondly, that libertarianism, where it ignores the natural law, is the wrong way to look at things!!

22 responses to “Guest Post: The Limits of Democracy – an (the!) answer.”

Andrew

July 31, 2013

Who is God?
What are God’s laws?
And why must a law be consistent with God’s law?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

July 31, 2013

The word God isn’t really necessary here – you could equally well say ” the mind” or whatever – the point is that there is some general accepted view of morality.
At the same time, we are entirely free to ignore that view, we can also imagine those who do not share it.
So, as with music, we imagine that there are some underlying rules which make certain combinations of sounds beautiful to most people, that listening to more music might reveal to us more beautiful tunes, but also know that we can never objectively prove one sound to be superior to another.

LikeLike

Reply
Navigator

July 31, 2013

Fantastic – some easy questions!! Trying to keep my answers in the context of Tom’s question, and in reverse order:
There are many man-made laws – many of them awful. My host and many of his readers are libertarian, a principle to which I am very sympathetic. Tom’s question posed a dilemma where a libertarian view provides an answer that he felt was wrong. it is my belief that there is more compelling framework to evaluate laws, and if that one does so, and evaluates them by reference to natural law, then the dilemma posed by Tom, is resolved in accordance with his (and most people’s) view of right and wrong. My point is that this moral element supports the proposition that good law, in the moral sense, can be identified as being consistent with natural law.
The answers to your other two questions are too broad to answer in this thread, but in short God’s laws are those revealed to us – the Commandments if you will, but not only them. And who is God? Brighter men and women than I have spent considerable answering that one, but will you allow me (again seeking context) to say the Creator who made us all who, like Tom, viewed the dilemma as being contrary to what they view as right?

LikeLike

Reply
Navigator

July 31, 2013

Why then is ‘the mind’ – and most or even every mind – then wired to the same generally accepted view of morality in this case? Do you consider it to be random?
I agree with your observation that God is not necessary (as were your comments about being attracted to beauty and indeed music), but I disagree with your conclusion – I don’t believe it is random, and that this common morality (and beauty etc.) suggests, and is best explained by, the existence of God, which in turn supports my proposition that natural law is ‘good’ in both senses of the word, and consistent with the common morality.

LikeLike

Reply
Andrew

July 31, 2013

Ok, so God’s law is best because it’s moral.
What defines what’s moral and what’s not moral?

LikeLike

Reply
Navigator

July 31, 2013

Did you not answer your own question?
Something that is consistent with or derived from natural law is moral.

LikeLike

Reply
Andrew

July 31, 2013

Sorry, you’ll have to keep with me, I’m not very smart. I like to boil everything down to its concepts so I can fully understand it:
So God’s law is best because it’s moral.
And it’s moral because it’s God law.

LikeLike

Reply
Navigator

July 31, 2013

You do yourself a disservice – simplicity is smart.
And yes, that is the simple way to conceptualise it.

LikeLike

Reply
Andrew

August 1, 2013

Ok.
God’s law is best because it’s moral.
It’s moral because it’s God’s law.
So God’s law is best because it’s God’s law.

LikeLike

Reply
Navigator

August 1, 2013

Yes, that is the simplest way of saying the same thing, and is enough for those who believe in God.
Many don’t, so one seeks the answer using reason (which comes from…..). I don’t want to complicate matters, but you started with the proposition that natural law is moral. To apply this to Tom’s example, we are seeking a better way of answering his dilemma. My point, which it seems we are in agreement on, is that the natural law is the moral law, which is right, and resolves Tom’s dilemma.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark

August 1, 2013

Well, surely the argument would be that that is simply evolution, biological mechanisms at work – why are most hands similar ?
I don’t think biologists would call that process “random”.
Personally, I feel the best “reason” for believing in God is that the idea is beautiful. In that sense, talking about beauty can be a better way to reach God than talking about God is.

LikeLike

Reply
Andrew

August 1, 2013

“My point, which it seems we are in agreement on, is that the natural law is the moral law, which is right, and resolves Tom’s dilemma.”
I still don’t know why it’s right. My attempt to find out ended up as circular logic and an appeal to authority.
Until I know why, I can’t agree with it.

LikeLike

Reply
Navigator

August 1, 2013

We are not talking about hands (although the proposition supports that too), we are talking about the interior judgement or conscience of each of us, that when we read Tom’s question, had him saying – this answer is wrong, how do I get the ‘right’ answer. My view is that this is because we are all made to want what is right (which leads to happiness) and that natural law is a more compelling model than libertarianism to deliver that in terms of systems of law.
Again, I don’t disagree about beauty as a basis for belief. It is not quite on point, but I commend Roger Scruton’s short essay ‘Beauty’ to you.

LikeLike

Reply
Moggsy

August 1, 2013

The only “Natural Law” I really heard of was the “Natural Law Party” that believed/s in levitation “yogic flying” and once ran lots of candidates for a UK election back in tha last century. So if we are talking that… then just how fringe do you want to go?
http://www.natural-law-party.org.uk/pressreleases/UK-19970428-yogic-flying-demonstration.htm
If you are talking some other “natural law” then I would say that some laws are crafted to allow for and maybe use “human nature” people’s natural inclinations, self interest, and some are not, so some are practically self generating and reinforcing and others are the opposite.
The law as it came about on murder and theft are examples, so basic to living together that they are mentioned in the ten commandments. It’s only recently they seem to have been complicated and fractured, often against what seems common sense to where they can be difficult to see justice in.
To me Libertarianism is based on very simple (and utterly obvious when you think about it) moral ideas/rules.
There is lots of lies and distortions and deliberate misinterpretation by political opponents and those who don’t undertand them.
I am guessing your comment “libertarianism, where it ignores the natural law” suggests you have not looked closely at those simple ideas.
If you are interested visit
http://www.jonathangullible.com/
and Watch the animation “The philosphy of liberty” someone (hat tip S I think) once pointed me at that explains it real well.

LikeLike

Reply
Captain Ranty

August 1, 2013

I prefer to use the term ‘natural law’ than ‘God’s law’.
Natural, because it is. And, it’s a concept that those of no faith can wrap their heads around.
A tree does not have to be told “Be a tree”. A man or woman does not have to be told not to kill, cause harm or injury, or steal, or con people. We know it is wrong. It is hard-wired into our brains.
Statute law is just fluff, in my opinion. Make-work for MPs. All of them (statutes), and I really do mean that, can be covered by the simple notion of “Do no harm”, and as I have said, even that does not need to be written down.
CR.

LikeLike

Reply
Moggsy

August 1, 2013

Captain, I would differ about “does not have to be told not to kill, cause harm or injury, or steal…”
A baby does not seem to even know if it is causing hurt to start, say by pulling your hair, until it works it out for it’s self and/or is taught.
Kids will try and con you by blaming something or someone else for things also.
If stuff does not need to be written down how do you account for the stonemasonry on Mt Sinai? Just askin…
I agree most of what parliament does seems useless timewastery.
It’s not even like most of the uselss sudivided laws making it even more naughty if someone hits someone because they don’t like their sexuality than if they do it because they don’t like their faces are needed to make hitting them illegal or makes it less painful.
If the original laws were enforced properly there would be no need for hair splitting.
It seems most of the laws are imposed from europe now anyhow.

LikeLike

Reply
Captain Ranty

August 1, 2013

Fair enough, Moggsy.
I should have used the caveat: by the time we grow up and know our minds.
I keep a close eye on statute law, and yes, it is badly out of control.
The Tories, I thought, were the solution, but it turns out they are the problem. In record-breaking ways, I should add.
Look:
(Legislation produced in the last five years and it includes secondary legislation/statutory instruments)
2013 – 2391 (so far)
2012 – 4195 (highest amount ever produced in 1 year
2011 – 4116 first year in power for the coalition-first record breaker too.
2010 – 3969 mix of both coalition and Labour govt
2009 – 2861 Labour
The common argument when I quote these figures is “Yeah, but SI’s are not law”. What people do not know is the definition of an SI (in part is that “…it is given the force of law”. I take that to mean they are no different from primary legislation.
And yes, some estimate that 70-80% comes from our true masters in Brussels.
What I’d love to know is how much each piece of legislation actually costs: to write, to read, to amend, to promulgate and to enforce. And, crucially, just how much cash does each piece generate?
How much easier would it be for judges/sheriffs/magistrates to be retrained and taught to apply punishment without having to read thousands of statutes (throughout their careers) as they see fit? Overly harsh or overly lenient punishments can be snagged by an appeal system.
Lastly, with 4000 pieces of legislation being vomited out each year, can any man or woman truly state that they are fully aware of, and fully compliant with every single one of them?
CR.

LikeLike

Reply
Captain Ranty

August 1, 2013

Beg pardon.
I should have left a link to the source:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all
Scroll down to the info on the bottom left. Mosey back in time to see what we produced/did not produce in the good old/bad old days.
CR.

LikeLike

Reply
cascadian

August 1, 2013

Thank you for the link below, those are truly astounding numbers-how can any serious person say now “that ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
I have taken the liberty to link to a slightly different page, and would ask people to scroll back to a random date
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi
It is beyond strange that the realm could be administered and laws upheld with just 40 statutory instruments in the 1950’s, whilst in 2013, 1897 SI’s are required (down from 3328!! in 2012).
Shakespeare seemed to have divined the solution many years ago when he counselled “first we kill the lawyers” (sorry Tom), perhaps then sanity can prevail and people can get on living their lives peacably and with minimum interference from the state.

LikeLike

Reply
Moggsy

August 2, 2013

Re what you say about laws and parliament, yes I agree.

LikeLike

Reply
Captain Ranty

August 2, 2013

🙂
The lawyers aren’t the (whole) problem. It’s the ‘lawmakers’. AKA Emm Pees.
If you search in the bar at the top for primary legislation you may be fascinated to learn that sometimes many years passed before a single law was enacted. Go back to 1265 and start there.
Imagine: it’s 1265 and De Montfort forms the first ever parliament. A group of men gather and…..do nothing. It took them almost two years to write and enact their first piece of law.
All that power and they did the only sensible thing: they waited. And they talked. And they talked. And talked.
If only such consideration was given to every single piece of legislation today.
CR.

LikeLike

Reply
cascadian

August 3, 2013

Indeed you are correct.
Considering 86 of the lawmakers are (were) lawyers and a further 90 MP’s have never had a real job (presumably that number does not include lawyers), then I think we can begin to understand why parliament is very partial to more laws of the dipshit variety to enrich the likes of Cherie Bliar.

LikeLike

Reply