The Myth of the "Philosopher-King"

Few could have missed the curious fact that, at the recent royal wedding, all the men of the British royal family were in military uniform.

The English king has always been a warlord - and not a law-maker.

Now, we have "parliamentary sovereignty" - and parliament has become the law-maker, something no English sovereign ever was. And therein lies to root of all democratic tyranny: "unlimited democracy."

 As Ludwig von Mises wrote:

The main political problem is how to prevent the rulers from becoming despots and enslaving the citizenry.

Right upto the early 19th century, it was clear that THE LAW was something that was not to be tinkered with. The sovereign must provide an "exact administration of justice," wrote Adam Smith in 1776. He did not say that the sovereign must make law.

All this changed after socialism gained ascendancy - for socialists must rely on legislation. And then came the era of what Bruno Leoni called "inflated legislation." Parliaments became despotic and enslaved us all.

If we examine the Olde English Constitution, we see another sword apart from the Sword of State which the king wields - and that is the Civic Sword, which the Lord Mayor of London upholds, a sword that is older than the Magna Carta.

These merchants of the Olde City were far richer than their king. You have seen the carriages in which the royal family rode back to Buckingham Palace; below is the Lord Mayor of London's carriage - made of gold. 

Capitalism, Liberty, Civil Government... they all go together. The idea: civic independence by keeping the King out of the City. Till today, the King of England cannot march his army through the Olde City without the Lord Mayor's permission. Even the title "lord" was given to the mayor by the people - and did not come from the king.

If the English king is nothing more than a warlord, what do we make of Plato's notion of a "philosopher-king"? It is nonsense, of course. The philosopher is never the king - and he must philosophise only because there is something amiss with the king.

However, in India - and in much of the world - the idea that The State must educate the young persists; the idea that The  State is headed by a philosopher-king. 

Our Great Leader, chacha manmohan s gandhi, is considered to be one such philosopher-king, centrally planning all economic activity - and also giving all the kids "free and compulsory education." What fools we all are. We willingly fork out the "education tax" too. A nation of fools, that's us.

A philosopher in State employ, in my opinion, is no philosopher at all. My ideal is Diogenes the Cynic, who told Alexander the Great "don't stand between me and the sun." He was an ascetic, of course, and that is what those who philosophise must be. 

Ludwig von Mises said, "I will write a great deal about money, but never make much myself." That's my kind of philosopher - not manmohan.

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Recommended reading: My column titled "For a Private Law Society."

I also recommend Hayek's Law, Legislation & Liberty, Vol. 1, "Rules and Order."

In addition, the reader would also benefit from Bruno Leoni's excellent Freedom & The Law.