Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah

Individualistic Austro-Libertarian Natural Order Philosophy From Indyeah
Showing posts with label Rule of Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rule of Law. Show all posts

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Why I Despise Central Banking, Keynes, And Keynesians Like Paul Krugman

Western Europe, and, in particular, England, developed ahead of the rest of the world only because here the people managed to contain their rulers. Kings, and their royal servants, had to "obey the law" no less than the people. Property and contracts were thus secure from State predation. Economic development naturally followed. In England, the beginning was in 1215 AD - the signing of the Magna Carta. With this, there was "due process," habeas corpus, and much more. After this, the people said, of their rulers:


The King is UNDER God and the Law

and


There is no King where Will rules and not the Law

Such events never happened in nations like ours. Our rulers were always arbitrary.


With the coming of written constitutions, a new concept emerged alongside that of the Rule of Law - and that is "limited government": the purpose of constitutions was to limit the powers and scope of the State. There are two effective means of limiting this power: one, by constitutional law; and the second, by the Budget.


Both these limits to government have been overthrown in modern times by the Keynesians, what with central banking and fiat paper money. These have been weapons in the hands of rulers to buy up support and to finance anything and everything to their own glory, from wars to welfare to space exploration. Entire parliaments can be bought. This is particularly true of India.


The whole world has been inflated. Money is no longer something "hard." It is just government paper. 


Yet, this government paper still has a "promise to pay" inscribed upon it, signed by the central banker. This promise - which makes the note a solemn contract - is meaningless today. The note is actually a Property Title. Today, there is no property backing this title. This is the problem the whole world is facing.


These central banksters practice "fractional reserve banking" with private bankers who are members of their paper money cartel. They say they are "lenders of last resort." Money as well as banking become corrupt under such a system. 


We need gold as money - and free private banking under ordinary commercial law. The writings of Jesus Huerta de Soto are vital in this context. And there is an essay on their import in my Natural Order: Essays Exploring Civil Government & the Rule of Law, which you can read online here. This version is dated 2007 - and I am hoping to have a new edition out next year.


The Keynesians have a very different view of money and banking - one based on "immorality." Keynes claimed to be an "amoralist" - but that was just his homosexuality. As an economist of money and banking, he was a pucca immoralist. Read about Keynes and the "ruling class" who adopted his ideas wholesale in this brief article by Garet Garret. Also, do read the article "Why the State demands control of money" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.


Today, the most prominent Keynesian in the world is the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. On the crisis in the Eurozone, Krugman writes that the best way out is to resort to "the power of the printing press" - and let the European Central Bank do the needful, even if current rules do not permit it. 


Really! If printing money could produce wealth, Indians would have been rich long, long ago.


Indeed, even producing more gold and silver does NOT create wealth, as the history of Spain and Portugal testify. The silver mines of Potosi and all the gold looted from South America did not make these nations rich. 


Britain got rich when gold was exported by the East India Company in exchange for spices - much to the displeasure of the mercantilists. What constitutes the "wealth of nations"? Adam Smith answered that in 1776 - and the plain answer was that it was NOT the hoard of bullion. If so, what can more irredeemable paper notes accomplish?


But Keynesian errors are not new. Ludwig von Mises, in his Notes & Recollections, writes of Carl Menger that his essay on "Geld" (money) which he contributed to the German-language Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences was brilliant. A few pages later, Mises writes:


For obvious reasons I frequently discussed G. F. Knapp's Staatliche Theorie des Geldes (State Theory of Money) with Menger. His answer was, "It is the logical development of Prussian police science. What are we to think of a nation whose whose elite, after two hundred years of Economics, admire such nonsense, which is not even new, as highest revelation? What can we still expect of such a nation?"


Menger, Mises writes, foresaw the destruction of Old Europe. He foresaw the wars that engulfed the whole world. All these wars were financed by "funny money." And these wars will forever continue until the State is once again "limited" by the Budget. And money is gold. Money is private.


Mises once wrote that these "intellectual battles" of our time are something everyone must plunge into - if civilisation is to be saved. These are not difficult issues to understand: what is money? what is banking? etc. I see people crack their brains on crossword puzzles, computer games and Sudoku every day. Yet, these are just pleasurable pastimes, meant to banish boredom.


Surely people can crack their brains at the vital issues of our age - money and banking? The future of our kids - and theirs - depend on it. If Krugman-types win the day, all will be lost.


Paul Krugman also wants to "protect" corrupt banking practices. He wants the power of the printing press to wipe out banking sector losses - irrespective of how much inflation will surely follow, and how much capital loss ordinary people will have to suffer. At least we in India ought to know better than to endure continued inflationism to fund welfare.


In the USSA, there is only one presidential candidate who knows money and banking well - and that is Ron Paul. His photograph graces this post. He wants to "end the Fed." He wants to end war too. He stands for Gold, Freedom, and Peace. 


I wish Ron Paul would add PROPERTY to this list. Without property, there can be no freedom; there can be no "limited government"; there can be no "rule of law": rechtstaat.


Ron Paul will succeed - and civilisation will be saved - only if all you people out there STUDY money and banking and arrive at your own decisions as to what is truth and what is falsehood; what is good, and what is evil.


So, don't "agitate" at political rallies before agitating your brains first.


This is my sincere advice to you all. 

Friday, April 29, 2011

Prashant Bhushan - Yet Another Socialist Lawyer

The lawyer Prashant Bhushan is a leading light of the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption movement currently underway, along with his father, Shanti Bhushan, who is also a lawyer. 

Today, the Express reports Prashant, while speaking at a public rally, insisting that "post-1991 economic policies, and privatisation, are the root cause of corruption." To Prashant, the freeing of enterprise from the clutches of our The State is the "precise reason" why corruption has grown. Ominously, the report begins by saying:
What was initially showcased as an anti-politician front against corruption seemed to blur into an anti-economic liberalisation coalition...

Prashant was joined on the dais by Arundhati Roy, who said:

As long as we have these [liberal] economic policies in place, the National Employment Guarantee Act will never be able to do away with hunger and malnutrition, anti-corruption laws will not do away with injustice, and criminal laws will not do away with communal fascism, the twin sibling of economic totalitarianism. They will, at best, be mitigating measures. As the historian Howard Zinn said “the rule of law does not do away with the unequal distribution of wealth and power, but reinforces that inequality with the authority of law. It allocates wealth and power in such complicated and indirect ways as to leave the victim bewildered."

Arundhati Roy added that "I have known Prashant Bhushan for years. First as a comrade and now as a close friend."

Other "activists" on the podium, according to the report, were Aruna Roy who championed the MGNREGA "right to employment" and now champions the "right to food." She never supports the "right to Property."

Aruna Roy, interestingly, is a Member of the National Advisory Council attached to Sonia Gandhi. 

So, these are not rebels; they are socialist sympathisers posing as rebels. They are not "against the System." They are against The Market. They are opposed to Liberty - and Property. They champion useless rights while ignoring Property. And they are led by lawyers - that is, socialist lawyers. I have just written a post against socialist judges - all of whom start off as socialist lawyers. Beware of socialist lawyers: Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, Patel - all were socialist lawyers.

Since Prashant Bhushan is a "comrade-turned-friend" of Arundhati Roy, let us examine her words quoted above - for the two obviously agree on their politics. Let is begin with her assertion that "as long as we have these [liberal] economic policies in place, the National Employment Guarantee Act will never be able to do away with hunger and malnutrition... " Does she think that if we close all markets down, the masses will be fed by our The State? Where does The State get revenue from to feed anyone - but from wealth producers of The Market?

Arundhati Roy favourably quotes a pseudo-historian who wrote that “the rule of law does not do away with the unequal distribution of wealth and power, but reinforces that inequality with the authority of law. It allocates wealth and power in such complicated and indirect ways as to leave the victim bewildered."

This is NONSENSE!

The Rule of Law protects Private Property from State predation. Apart from the security of possession, this yields the sweet fruit of Liberty. As Mises put it:

Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state. It sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will. It allows other forces to arise side by side with and in opposition to political power.

Thus, the Rule of Law does not "allocate" anything. Its motto is "to each his own." Then, with Liberty and Free Markets, individuals speculate on how they can serve their customers better, competition enters the picture, people strive, some succeed, some fail, and the previous arrangement of wealth is altered, and keeps on altering forever. Mises says:
It is precisely the necessity of making profits and avoiding losses that gives to the consumers a firm hold over the entrepreneurs and forces them to comply with the wishes of the people.

This Free Market is an "economic democracy" - and not the "economic totalitarianism" Arundhati Roy rails against. Central economic planning is totalitarian - not Free Markets, which are a creature of Liberty, and in which each is free to challenge the superiority of another - to compete. Further, as consumers are "sovereign" in The Market, and every businessman is trying to woo the consumer, there is an "economic democracy" that works even better than the political one. As Mises put it:

The market is a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. It is precisely the necessity of making profits and avoiding losses that gives to the consumers a firm hold over the entrepreneurs and forces them to comply with the wishes of the people.
We are "served" by businesses. We are never served by politicians and bureaucrats, who are "self-serving." They are the Predatory State. Prashant Bhushan, Arundhati Roy and Aruna Roy are actually on their side - though they may pretend otherwise. 

There is either The Market - or there is The State. There is nothing else. These anti-corruption activists who are opposed to The Market are all in favour of a Bigger State - a Big Welfare State that will feed, house, clothe, educate, develop and uplift the sheeple

They support useless "rights" - while ignoring Property, from which alone can Liberty arise. These useless rights only serve politicians and bureaucrats (whose budgets grow exponentially). 

Thus, they are not against corruption; rather, they will reinforce corruption - and even enlarge it. 

They are looking for State Power themselves. The Jan Lok Pal will be their little bit of The State. 

In exchange, they will allow the socialists at the helm to continue to operate a Big Welfare State - which will consume all our precious Capital and therefore keep our masses permanently poverty-stricken, and our civilisation will soon collapse. 

For the progress of civilisation we must "accumulate capital" - and not consume it through welfarism. All welfare is about consumption, not investment.

I have an earlier post on Anna Hazare's tin-pot dictatorship in his village.

Add to that this nonsense from his closest aide, the lawyer Prashant Bhushan, and you realise that this is another false dawn.

So, I shall stick to my prescription: The Sheeple must rise En-Masse and FORCE our The State to sign a New Magna Carta guaranteeing the inviolability of our properties, the freedom to trade by land and sea, and the freedom to run our cities and towns without interference from higher authorities. The corruption inherent in inflationism must be ended, so that our wealth is preserved with sound, hard money.

We must "Seize Liberty and End Tyranny." Our focus must be to fight tyranny, not corruption.

Our battle must be for Liberty and Property - and we must never accept any freebies doled out by The State. These freebies are paid for by us, anyway. 

Lawyers are very dangerous people - look at Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley. Lawyers - like doctors - are a "self-regulating profession." Lawyers become judges, and lawyers teach law. Just as doctors misuse their monopoly of knowledge, so do lawyers. The only cure - the citizens must know law too. That is, the Laws of Liberty and Property.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Freedom Means Just This: No Police Interference

The "practical" definition of Freedom is what the title says: No Police Interference. This means all the citizens are free to engage in economic activity and, of course, the arts. The people enjoy Natural Liberty and a Natural Order prevails. Disruptions to this order, by enemies of this order, are to be handled by the police - and that means tackling "anti-socials." This is always done at the local level. This is what urban, local self-government is all about.

Thus, Freedom is not government. Freedom is not The State. Government is the negation of freedom. Its every act stems from coercion and compulsion - including its means of performing these acts, which is taxation.

Having said that, which is the "classical liberal" view from Adam Smith down to Ludwig von Mises, let us turn to those who established a centralised State in order to "command the economy." What can we say of that generation today except that they had NO IDEA as to what Freedom means. No idea at all. India's "tryst with destiny" never happened. August 15, 1947 was a false dawn. All our gods failed: Nehru, Gandhi, Socialism, Democracy... All we have today is Naked Tyranny.

We need to fight for freedom again.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

The Marine Drive Act: Take # 2

Galbraith, who  was Kennedy's ambassador the Nehru, famously described India as a "functioning anarchy." What a truly lovely country we must be.

I am now living in one such part of the vast sub-continent, in the Boom Shankar cafe alongside a cove in Goa, where even the Property is "illegal" because of Legislation from Nude Elly - the coastal zone regulation act purpotedly designed to protect the sand and prevent erosion of the rocks. And conserve mangroves, of course.

Across the cove, I see properties - but they look poor. Nature, on the other hand, has been bountiful in the doling out of beauty, for this is truly a beautiful spot, blessed.

I spent a holiday with myself, looking out across the gently lapping waters, coconut palms and small mountains, rocks, birds... some smoke, some mohitos... and thought... Why can't the properties of Man on this planet be as beautiful and grand as what Nature has created?

What sense does it make to unleash Nature and leash Man?

Think of the stunning cities the Muslims built in the desert - like Samarkand, which Babur conquered when only 13.

So I let out talk of another Act  for The Coastal Zone - called the Marine Drive Act.

Let's ask some "fundamental questions"?

What is Life without Property and Liberty? - neither of which are guaranteed in the Socialist, Secular Constitution of India.

And what can make a City beautiful?

Surely, it must be Private Magnificence - which is a "virtue."

A state might build some great buildings - but everything else much be achieved by Free Society. Through the Production of Wealth.

And there is only One Golden Rule under which this ceaseless Production of Wealth can be carried out:

The Inviolability of Private Property

And this Golden Rule is the Legal Basis of The Marine Drive Act.

Hear Ludwig von  Mises on Liberty:

This, then, is freedom in the external life of man - that he is independent of the arbitrary power of his fellows. Such freedom is no natural right. It did not exist under primitive conditions. It arose in the process of social development and its final completion is the work of mature Capitalism.

This, then, is the difference between Socialism and Capitalism. Collective Property versus Private Property. Between Air India, SAIL and ONGC and This is the House that Chuck Built.

Take sides.

There us a War between the Left and Right.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

What Drives Me Crazy...

Its getting hotter in Goa, the tourists have more or less gone, but its a happy time, nonetheless. Cashews are falling off the trees - and the air smells of feni. Sexy!

The first distillate is sold fresh - and unbranded, as urak. I had three large shots of urak with lunch yesterday at Lounguinho's: the local equivalent of a "three martini lunch." Great! At just 10 bucks a shot - while the pork chops cost more than a hundred. Great!

Had more urak last night. Bought it from a local bar - unbranded - for a hundred, and downed four or five large shots. High as a kite! Far out!

Met a chap from a "consumer protection group" - and told him about Torts.

The retailer is liable if unbranded stuff is harmful. This includes medicines. And masalas and spices. Or edible oils.

Hope the fellow got my drift - since I had drifted quite far away, in terms of height above sea level.

Woke up this morning wanting to sit atop Mount Kailash - wanted to smoke some Bhola.

Spent 2k on some "seedless grass" and some charas - and extinguished both spliffs after a few puffs.

Awful stuff!

Received the following anonymous blog comment from a Goan this morning:

It is tough for Goans to read about drug cases tarnishing the image of the state in the eyes of the nation, even though, Goa may be far behind Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore or Chennai in terms of the quantity of drugs flowing on the streets. Every year, there are over 1,000 cases in Mumbai alone against drug peddlers, compared to just about 55 to 60 cases in Goa.

Still, the latest to sting the Goans is the David Driham alias Dudu drug case, which has got murkier by the day not because of the seizure alone, but because of video clippings claiming evidence against the cops. This time, it has tarnished the image of the cops beyond repair because PSI Sunil Gudlar is allegedly seen exchanging some packets, ostensibly containing drugs, with foreigners. The allegation is that he was selling drugs and taking bribe. The top brass of the state police took undue time to suspend Gudlar in the case. When the first video clippings came out, they looked morphed, but the second and third video footings almost gave him out and there are alleged conversations which could nail senior police officers including former Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC) SP Veenu Bansal.

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/point-blank/entry/dismiss-gudlar-for-insulting-mahatma-gandhi

Legalise it!

I'll Advertise It!

This evening, the old lady came by looking for the cashews from her trees that have fallen in other people's properties. I was told that she used to make feni at home - for her son, but the poor chap became alcoholic and died young. Ditto with another chap I knew in Nude Elly - we called him Boozoo, and he's dead now.

This is the kind of country these tyrants are trying to create - all booze and no Holy Smoke.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote, in Bureaucracy:

Every dictator plans to rear, raise, feed, and train his fellow men as the breeder does his cattle. His aim is not to make the people happy but to bring them into a condition which renders him, the dictator, happy. He wants to domesticate them, to give them cattle status. The cattle breeder also is a benevolent despot.


Song of the Day: Eric Clapton's live version of "I Shot the Sheriff," with a long guitar solo. Video here.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Rats - And The Sinking Ship

The photo accompanying this post is from Jaitapur on the Konkan Coast just north of Goa, where a State-owned nuclear power plant is slated to come up. This photo appeared in Outlook, and shows our State Police meting out rough treatment to locals opposed to the forcible seizure of their lands, and also opposed to a nuclear facility in their area for reasons of safety. The report in Outlook says this about the Central State's choice of Jaitapur as a site for a nuclear power plant:

But in 20 years, as many as 92 quakes have been recorded here [Jaitapur], with the severest of them in 1993 measuring 6.2 on the Richter scale. The region is officially seismically marked as Zone III — Zone V being the worst category. And despite the elevation of the site on a plateau, concerns about a tsunami refuse to fade. It is perhaps keeping this in mind that Commerzbank, the German bank backing the project, pulled out even before the Japanese crisis, citing the “sustainability and reputational risk” involved.

There is another report, this time in Tehelka, which chronicles abuses of power by the State Police - who seem to be on the side of our The State and not The People, and must therefore be looked upon as Predators, not Protectors. The report begins saying that "lock-ups, prisons and court cases have become an integral part of the lives of Jaitapur’s residents." The opening para ends saying that this "scenic village" has been turned into a "state of dystopia."

[Dystopia is the opposite of Utopia: that is, a place where conditions of life are dreadful.]

Tehelka goes on to say that Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (relating to unlawful assembly) has been in force in Jaitapur since August, 2010, in order to "maintain peace." They say false cases have been lodged against activists opposing the nuclear power plant. They add that the latest from the State Police is the arrest of 14 persons including a prominent nuclear plant opposer, Dr. Milind Desai.

The new chief minister of Maharashtra - who took over when the last chap was replaced by the CONgress High Command in Nude Elly because of his direct involvement in the Adarsh building scam - is the very same fellow who flanked Chacha Manmohan when he signed the nuclear deal with Sarkozy: Prithviraj Chavan, who then Minister for Science and Technology in Nude Elly. Tehelka says Prithviraj Chavan is "the PM’s point man for the Jaitapur plant and all other new n-plants coming up in the country." Thus, the new CM is very keen on seeing the project through.

However, when this chief minister visited the area, 10,000 locals turned up to meet him, shouting, “No nuclear power, no nuclear plant.” Writing about this public appearance of the CM, Tehelka says:

In front of a gathering of 10,000 Chavan had no choice but to listen to them, but he was visibly annoyed sitting on the dais, helpless.

When he finally spoke, Chavan stressed in an uncharacteristically aggressive tone the ‘misconceptions’ and misleading reports the locals were made to believe. He invoked national pride and the competition with China to justify the successful completion of the project, but appeared to have ignored local sentiment.

Thus, this new CM is an agent of Nude Elly - and a traitor to his own Maharashtrian people. Nude Elly, on its part, has committed High Treason against these simple and innocent village folk - as I wrote in a recent post.

In any case, electricity production by our The State should be opposed by all right-thinking citizens - if they desire regular, uninterrupted power supply. Electricity must be privatised - and private power producers will choose the fuels that are cheap and safe. Full liability will apply to them in case of accidents. This is what ought to be.

Let us turn to the people at the top - in Nude Elly. A timely column by Pritish Nandy - who has also been a Rajya Sabha MP (Shiv Sena!) - is titled "A ship about to sink." Here are some chosen quotes:

The Indian Political Philharmonic Orchestra must be the world’s most amazing cacophony of rogues, rascals and robbers. 

But now, enough is enough. Neither [Manmohan] Singh nor Pranab Mukherjee, nor anyone else is capable any more of saving this Government. It’s neck deep in its own sticky sleaze.... Look at Singh, wan and waylost.

But that doesn’t mean they are not malevolent. These are people who are destroying India from within. They are not just robbing you, me, and the exchequer. They are destroying institutions, subverting laws, vandalising our heritage and history, and trying to build a dazzling, amoral edifice of crime and corruption unprecedented in the nation’s history. It’s a scary scenario that could turn the land of the Mahatma into one gigantic Gotham City with a flyover to hell.

I had begun this post with the abuses of power being committed by the State Police against innocent people - and they are the rats in this sinking CONgress ship.

I am now even more convinced that every citizen should get himself a gun. We must all be fully capable of defending ourselves - against the State Police, who are our oppressors.

My ideal is India before the Police Act of 1861 - ironically, the very same year that Rabindranath Tagore, the poet who dreamed of an India "where the mind is without fear and the head is held high," was born. Till then, the "civilians" of the East India Company ruled without police support. All that these HEICS civilians did was maintain land records up-to-date and settle disputes.

In England, there were no policemen till 1829, when Sir Robert Peel established the Bobby of London - who remains unarmed.

And in good, old America, every town elected its own Sheriff - while every citizen was armed.

There is the other ideal too - of the Anglo-Saxon tribes of old, who had no notion of crimes other than "crimes against the individual," which were treated as Torts. I wrote about this "superior justice" of restitution (as against the retribution of today) just the other day.

Enough of these rats of the State Police. Let them go down with the sinking Pirate Ship of State. Let us be free. And let us be secure with our own arms.

Friday, March 18, 2011

The Superior Justice Of "Blood Money"

The news from Pakistan says that CIA contractor Raymond Davis was pardoned and freed after the victims' families received "blood money" under Sharia law. Davis killed three people.


There are two kinds of Justice in such cases - restitution (as with all torts - and blood money); and retribution (jail or execution, in which the victim suffers for his crime). 


When there is restitution, the victim gets financial compensation.


With retribution, the victim gets nothing - and society pays taxes for the prosecution, trial and detention of the perpetrator.

Retribution is an old, primitive kind of justice - eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth logic.

Restitution is more modern and sophisticated - and reflects "economic man."


I liked Lew Rockwell's comment in favour of blood money in the Davis case. He writes:


The CIA hit man who shot and killed two Pakistanis, and was responsible for the automobile homicide of another, has been let off after the US paid “blood money” to the families of the bereaved. “Diyya” or blood money is a provision in Sharia law. Ancient German and Anglo-Saxon law had such provisions as well. Let’s compare. In the US, the family of a murdered man is not compensated; rather, they are taxed to help maintain the killer in an outpost of the very expensive prison-industrial complex. In Pakistan, the survivors have the choice of seeking compensation rather than punishment. Widows and children will then not be left destitute. Now, which is more civilized?


Ancient Anglo-Saxon law had nothing called "crime" - in the sense of "crimes against the King" or "crimes against the State." There were only "crimes against the individual" - and these were treated as Torts, and fines were levied on perpetrators, so that victims obtained compensation.

Things changed after the Normans took over. Greedy Norman kings legislated certain acts as "crimes against the King" - only for fiscal reasons; that is, to pocket the fines for themselves.

Thus, slowly, the "natural order" under which the Anglo-Saxon tribes lived was radically altered, till we now have crimes, police, prosecution and punishment - while victims get nothing. Frankly, I think the old days were much better.

A good history of the old days can be found in Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State - which you can buy here. Great book; well worth reading.

Monday, February 28, 2011

The Natural Rules Of The Natural Order

As I watched a television debate on the revolutions in the Arab world, it struck me that we need to understand how "civil order" happens - naturally. This order exists on its own because all the separate Individuals acting within it towards their own ends follow "rules" that have "evolved" alongside the human mind itself, through the processes of civilisation.

The primary rule is the Inviolability of Property - which is what we see in every bazzaar, when the goods arrayed before a vendor are treated by all as his Property. "Possession indicates Property," as they say. It follows that this unarticulated rule of civilisation ought to be the Basic Law - but communists and socialists think otherwise. Of course, as they never realise, if it were declared in any bazzaar that everything on offer is "common property," all order would instantaneously break down, and all would loot "in the name of the communist brotherhood." Anyone would take anything he wanted from anyone - and say, "Thanks, comrade."

There are two other "natural rules" that operate in human society: Contracts and Torts.  Contracts are "private law" that bind the parties who sign them. Torts are "private compensation" to victims for damages sustained.

All these natural rules we all follow create and sustain "order" - and this, while The Law secures our future. Property, Contracts and Torts are all about the future. They make the uncertain future less uncertain. This is because there is "certainty in the Law" itself.

Society therefore secures the future through "certainty" in The Law - and through the processes of entrepreneurship, for it is entrepreneurs who "make provision for the uncertain future." You get what in The Market only because of entrepreneurs - who have made provision for your uncertain need. All "speculation." But it makes the uncertain future less uncertain.

What "governs" a society is nothing but The Law. And there ought to be a wide "consensus" on this - and that ought to be the true purpose of "politics." In my previous post, I wrote of a "religion of consent." If this religion spreads, and if the "natural rules" of the natural order listed above are widely accepted, then we have the basis for a stable social order. That is, a "political order" - based on the "common recognition of the same rules." Thereafter, it is simple mechanics to establish a "government by consent." These "governors" are not "rulers" nor "law makers"; rather, they are there to perform some basic services within peaceable civil communities, and to Uphold the Law, while effectively being "under" it.

During the debate on the Arab revolutions, some voices were raised for Democracy - and we were informed of 17 "political parties" being in the fray in one such nation. It could well be that some of these parties are being supported by whatever remains of the ancien regime of the tyrants who have been overthrown. It is not "party politics" but "free politics" through which political ideas and ideals are articulated that can establish the "consensus" about the nature of the political order under which all will agree to live - which is "government by consent." The "religion of consent" on which I wrote yesterday holds the key.

The Principle upon which such a consensual society functions without any disorder is the Principle of Non-Aggression. Force is shunned by all - including especially those chosen as governors. Peace reigns. And the international division of labour keeps spreading.

Civilisation!

Liberty!

Natural Order!

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Liberty versus Democracy

Democracy and Liberty are two entirely different things. Rebels and revolutionaries around the world who are "fighting for democracy" should heed this truth - and young Indians need to note this as well. The generation that "fought for freedom" here in 1947 didn't give us anything but the empty vote. No raja, maharaja or nawab ever outlawed ganja in Indian history, nor the nautch girl.

Democracy is not Freedom. Rather, it is Legislation - new ones with every passing day. Now they have even banned smoking cigarettes in bars and restaurants. Unlimited legislation is nothing by Arbitrary Rule - the "will of a few" - and is Tyranny.

A column by Walter Williams makes this very point with regard to America: that their founding fathers established a "republic" and not a "democracy." He writes:

What's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." That means Congress does not grant us rights; their job is to protect our natural or God-given rights.

For example, the Constitution's First Amendment doesn't say Congress shall grant us freedom of speech, the press and religion. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Since the republicanism of revolutionary America was heavily influenced by Cato's Letters, let me turn my reader once again to what these early "independent Whigs" thought of Liberty and Government:

By Liberty, I understand the Power which every Man has over his own Actions, and his Right to enjoy the Fruit of his Labour, Art, and Industry.... The Fruits of a Man's honest Industry are just Rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal Equity, as is his Title to use them in the Manner which he thinks fit... every Man is sole Lord and Arbiter of his own private Actions and Property - A Character of which no Man living can divest him but by Usurpation, or by his own Consent.

The entering into political Society, is so far a Departure from this natural Right, that to preserve it was the sole Reason why Men did so...

That Right being conveyed by the Society to their publick Representative, he can execute the same no further than the Benefit and Security of that Society requires he should. When he exceeds his Commission, his Acts are as extrajudicial as those of any private Officer usurping an unlawful Authority...

What is Government, but a Trust committed by All, or the Most, to One, or a Few, who are to attend upon the Affairs of All, that every one may, with the more Security, attend upon his own? A great and honourable Trust, but too seldom honourably executed; those who possess it having it often more at Heart to increase their Power, than to make it useful; and to be terrible, rather than beneficent.

If I were to re-state these Principles today, in Practical terms, it would be: Freedom and Liberty mean nothing else than that the the police do not interfere. Property is Inviolate. All consensual trades are peaceably conducted. And a Natural Order prevails. Policemen, lawyers, magistrates, and judges are not required.


The following quote from the same source tells of the harm done by "public education" - and the good done by "public intellectuals":

Of all the Sciences that I know in the World, that of Government concerns us most, and is the easiest to be known, and yet is the least understood. Most of those who manage it would make the lower World believe that there is I know not what Difficulty and Mystery in it, far above vulgar Understandings; which Proceeding of theirs is direct Craft and Imposture: Every Ploughman knows a good Government from a bad one, from the Effects of it: he knows whether the Fruits of his Labour be his own, and whether he enjoy them in Peace and Security. And if he does not know the Principles of Government, it is for want of Thinking and Enquiry, for they lie open to common Sense; but people are generally taught not to think of them at all, or to think wrong of them.

One vital area where the entire world has been "taught to think wrong" is about money. Keynesian "monetary policy" makes it full of "Difficulty and Mystery." Yet, it is nothing but "Craft and Imposture." The original US Constitution did not give the Federal Government the power to print notes - but only mint standard coins. Gold and silver coins were money. Hard money. Simple and easy for all to understand.

Let us return to that simple world of Natural Liberty and Honest Money - that is, Money grounded in our History, and not this "theoretical money."

Monday, February 21, 2011

Constitutionalism - And Its Failure

As the fires of revolt and revolution spread around the world, and these oppressed peoples look for solutions like constitutions, it seems to me that these opening paragraphs from Friedrich Hayek's Law, Legislation & Liberty (Volume I: Rules and Order; University of Chicago Press, 1973) could serve as a much needed guide in such troubled times.

When Montesquieu and the framers of the American Constitution articulated the conception of a limiting constitution that had grown up in England, they set a pattern which liberal constitutionalism has followed ever since. Their chief aim was to provide institutional safeguards of individual freedom; and the device in which they placed their faith was the separation of powers. In the form in which we know this division of power between the legislature, the judiciary and the administration, it has not achieved what it was meant to achieve. Governments everywhere have obtained by constitutional means powers which those men had meant to deny them. The first attempt to secure individual liberty by constitutions has evidently failed.

Constitutionalism means limited government. But the interpretation given to the traditional formulae of constitutionalism has made it possible to reconcile these with a conception of democracy according to which this is a form of government where the will of the majority on any particular matter is unlimited. As a result it has already been seriously suggested that constitutions are an antiquated survival which have no place in the modern conception of government. And, indeed, what function is served by a constitution which makes omnipotent government possible? Is its function merely that governments work smoothly and efficiently, whatever their aims?

In these circumstances it seems important to ask what those founders of liberal constitutionalism would do today if, pursuing the aims they did, they could command all the experience we have gained in the meantime. There is much we ought to have learned from the history of the last two hundred years that those men with all their wisdom could not have known. To me their aims seem to be as valid as ever. But as their means have proved inadequate, new institutional invention is needed.

The footnotes to this section contain some definitions of constitutionalism that I am appending below:

1. "The original idea behind constitutions is that of limiting government and of requiring those who govern to conform to laws and rules."

2. "All constitutional government is by definition limited government... constitutionalism has one essential quality: it is a legal limitation of government; it is the antithesis of arbitrary rule; its opposite is despotic government, the government of will."

3. "Constitutionalism is the process by which governmental action is effectively restrained."

Immediately thereafter, another footnote says this of modern Democracy:

"The modern conception of Democracy is of a form of government in which no restriction is placed upon the governing body."

In the opening chapter titled "Reason and Evolution" Hayek tells us where we went wrong - and it all begins with not understanding that human society is a self-generating spontaneous order. The order is completely "natural" because man is a "rule-following animal" - but these rules have never been formally articulated, like Private Property. Thus, the illiterate crowds in our teeming bazaars are following these rules - which learned constitutional lawyers are unaware of - and that is why perfect order prevails, and posses of armed policemen are unnecessary. 

Hayek then goes on to point out our philosophical errors - the constructive rationalism of Rene Descartes and his contemporary Thomas Hobbes. In that Age of Reason, these ideas popularised the dangerous fiction that human society could be "designed anew" - by legislators. It was only during the Scottish Enlightenment that David Hume, Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith articulated the opposing viewpoint: that human society is an "order without design." Or that the natural spontaneous order we inhabit is "a product of human action and not human design," as Ferguson put it, in his An Essay on the History of Civil Society (1767). In a footnote, Hayek quotes from the introduction by Duncan Forbes to the 1966 reprint of this book, in which Forbes writes that the "superstition" that Legislators are Founders of States was precisely that these Scots destroyed:


The Legislator myth flourished in the eighteenth century, for a variety of reasons, and its destruction was perhaps the most original and daring coup of the social science of the Scottish Enlightenment.

It is only after studying these men that Charles Darwin conceived his theories of evolution - another "order without design." I have an earlier post on this.

And it was Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian school of Economics, who put it best when he wrote, in his discourse on the methodology of the social sciences (1883):

How can it be that institutions which serve the common welfare and are extremely significant for its development come into being without a ‘common will’ directed towards their establishment?

Markets have not been designed, just as languages have not. Nor have morals. Money was not invented by one mind - and certainly not that of a great ruler. All have evolved.

Ludwig von Mises must also be invoked here, for it is he who pointed out where true freedom lies:

"What gives to the individuals as much freedom as is compatible with life in society is the operation of the market economy. The constitutions and bills of rights do not create freedom."

The errors of the Cartesian-Hobbesian kind have only been multiplied by modern socialists - who speak of "social engineering" as though humanity is just putty waiting to be given shape by omniscient and omnipotent legislators. Rousseau typifies such nonsense. As with Hobbes, so with Rousseau, both popularised the false notion that society is formed by a "social contract" - and it from these errors that the problems of modern constitutionalism stem. Indeed, Contract is but Private Law. The only social contracts are treaties.

The true picture, that men are "rule-following," allows us to see Law as natural and evolved - though not articulated - and Legislation as interference, as democratic totalitarianism, and as an enemy of individual Liberty as well as a ceaseless violation of Private Property.

Without Legislation, human society would not be lawless - on the contrary, we would peacefully thrive in a "private law society."

The rebels and revolutionaries of today must therefore look towards the English Magna Carta of 1215 AD as their guide - for this is when constitutionalism began, by limiting the sovereign and guaranteeing the liberties of the people.  However, since modern democratic governments have exceeded their constitutional bounds, new limits need to imposed upon them, some of which I have attempted to outline in a previous post:

  • Freedom in the choice of media of exchange. That is, an end to the fiat money monopoly; the end of “legal tender.” Fiat paper notes can circulate – but we are free to refuse them. This will impose financial discipline on The State. Inflationism will finally end. Capital will be accumulated - not consumed. Poor people will benefit greatly.


  • The Inviolability of Private Property by any actions on the part of The State – either through Legislation or through its lawless agents.This will guarantee Liberty.


  • Freedom from the National Debt: that is, an end to State borrowing. This will impose further restrictions on recklessness and irresponsibility in State spending, while also securing the prosperity of future generations.

Unlimited government, which is arbitrary power, is an extremely destructive thing, much to be abhorred by all who desire human welfare. As Trenchard and Gordon, both Whigs (and Hayek preferred to call himself a Whig rather than a "conservative") put it in Cato's Letters, way back in the England of the 1720s:

There is something so wanton and monstrous in lawless Power, that there scarce ever was a human Spirit that could bear it; and the Mind of Man, which is weak and limited, ought never to be trusted with a Power that is boundless. The State of Tyranny is a State of War....

Power is like Fire; it warms, scorches, or destroys, according as it is watched, provoked or increased. It is as dangerous as useful. Its only Rule is the Good of the People; but because it is apt to break its Bounds, in all good Governments nothing, or as little as may be, ought to be left to Chance, or the Humours of Men in Authority: All should proceed by fixed and stated Rules....

This demonstrates the inestimable Blessing of Liberty. Can we ever over-rate it, or be too jealous of a Treasure which includes in it almost all Human Felicities? Or can we encourage too much those that contend for it, and those that promote it? It is the Parent of Virtue, Pleasure, Plenty, and Security; and 'tis innocent, as well as lovely. In all Contentions between Liberty and Power, the latter has almost constantly been the Aggressor. Liberty, if ever it produces any Evils, does also cure them: Its worst Effect, Licentiousness, never does, and never can, continue long. Anarchy cannot be of much Duration: and where 'tis so, it is the Child and Companion of Tyranny; which is not Government, but a Dissolution of it, as Tyrants are Enemies of Mankind.

I trust I have provided all those good people who are fighting their domestic tyrants and seeking their Liberty with plenty food for serious thought. Good luck to you all. May all tyrannies end. And may Liberty triumph.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Das Capital Is Inside Your Head

A glaring example of "false education" comes to all of us almost every day as some pseudo-economist or the other in Nude Elly, that too, from atop Raisina Hill, makes pronouncements on future "rates of growth" of the "national economy": both concepts are false. The latest is that the GDP will grow @ 8.56% next year, an extremely precise "measurement," that too of an amorphous "aggregate," looking into the very uncertain future.

Capital is a "mental category" inside your head, along with "income." These mental categories, both part of the "logical structure of the human mind," enable the illiterates on the banks of the Narmada here, those who herd cattle and goats in the manner of their ancient forebears, perform mental "economic calculation" within their minds so as to ensure they consume "income" and no more; indeed, that they consume less than income, so that they "save," and their Capital, the size of the herd, keeps growing - which is "capital accumulation." Cowboys in America did this. Sheep ranchers in Australia do the same.

Capitalism is therefore about each and every Individual, with his own mind, superintending all affairs pertaining to his own Capital. While the mental category of Capital is inside our heads, the actual stuff is usually material - and thus we have Individual Private Property. Since each must look after his own Property and Capital, one very important question that arises in inflationary times is regarding "store of value." Inflationism robs savers. Fiat currency no longer serves the purpose of a stable store of value. Gold, silver, art, land - people are preferring alternatives. For a simple reason: if you store your Capital in these forms, it will increase in value.

Whereas illiterate goatherds, shepherds and cowherds ensure capital accumulation (we call it "animal husbandry") the constant decline in the value of the fiat paper currency is because our The State is engaging in the very opposite form of behaviour: Capital Consumption. That is "deficit financing." Air India, the railways, the electricity boards, education, NREGA, salaries of millions of staffers - all this is "consumption." Not a "good shepherd" at all. Rather, the very Predatory State.

The idea of "limited government" means three things: firstly, limited by Law in its ability to use coercion, compulsion and force; second, limited by Parliament in its greed for taxation; and third, limited finally by the Budget voted.

It is only because of "unlimited democratic government" that the currency is in constant decline. The State is abusing its money monopoly to fund itself. The problem before each citizen as the Proprietor of his own Capital is, as I just pointed out, how to "store value" - into the uncertain future. The best advice I can offer the citizen is to press for an end to the money monopoly. We must be free to choose media of exchange as well as stores of value. Further, there must not be any taxes or customs duties on gold and silver. We must also be free to write contracts into the future in gold and silver - and this includes bank deposits.

If this is achieved, each Individual will be able to accumulate capital - the pathway to civilisation. Simultaneously, the pseudo-economists captaining the Pirate Ship of State will find their power to endlessly fund themselves at public expense suddenly withdrawn. They will be forced to adjust their own conduct. They will be "limited" - at least in the "economic" sense.

Collective statistics on the "national economy" are dangerous in the precise sense that all publicly held lies are dangerous. Capitalism is inside your own head, with you as the planner and proprietor - the ultimate decision maker - of what is your own. Since the future is uncertain, all your actions will be "speculative" as you try to store value, or invest speculatively in enterprise. The fact is that the pseudo-economists of the "national economy" are making things difficult for you - not only by inflationism, but by its inevitable consequence, the increase in uncertainty that results, the endless booms and busts.

Capital is a mental category, Capital is Private Property, and Capitalism is therefore all about Private Economies - billions of them. Capitalism has nothing to do with the false concept of "national economy" - which forms the principal false public education that the pseudo-economists from Nude Elly's Raisina Hill regularly engage in.

Monday, January 24, 2011

How To Sieze Liberty And End Tyranny

A Harvard educated lawyer called on me the other day to tap my brains on libertarian activism in the depressing conditions of present-day India. I advised him to draw up a Charter of Liberties in the manner of the English in 1215 AD and force our socialist rulers to sign it.

If the histories of civilizations is about “challenge and response,” then the Magna Carta of the English people represents a magnificent response on the part of a subject population to the challenge posed by a lawless and irresponsible monarch. It made Liberty king – and placed this monarch  as well as his successors "under the Law." It was re-confirmed by many English kings throughout the Middle Ages, during which time it became popularly known as “The First Statute of the Realm.” The English still do not possess a written Constitution. Further, then as now, the King did not “make law.” Keeping these points in mind, let us note some of the key clauses of the Magna Carta:

  • London and all the other towns and boroughs obtained the liberty to trade freely by land and sea, and to maintain their ancient liberties and customs. These liberties played a crucial role in the furtherance of England’s commercial culture and the development of a ‘body politic’ within feudal covers where local government was bourgeois. Independent urban local government is a corner-stone of the English system of government – and of western civilisation itself.

  • Englishmen had the right to brew their own ale – and this explains the ubiquitous English “pub.” These pubs were where people met and talked and drank in an age before tea and coffee were known, and this “public culture” must have played an important role in the open and public nature of English politics.

  • The barons retained the right to execute the terms of the Charter; a committee of twenty-five barons was to lead the entire realm into action against the king if he failed to keep his promises: thus, they had the right to revolt against an unjust ruler. William Hardel, Lord Mayor of London then, was on this committee of barons.

  • Chapter 12 of the Charter declares: “No scutage or aid [taxes] shall be imposed in our kingdom except by the common council of the kingdom” – which became the rallying cry of democracy: “No taxation without representation.”

  • Chapter 39 of the original Charter states: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed or outlawed or banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him, nor send upon him, except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” This is a powerful endorsement of what today we call “the rule of law” or “due process.” There were no “human rights” but there was the writ of habeas corpus.

  • Chapter 39 of the charter mentions the term lex terrae, or “law of the land,” which can be taken to mean the common law, especially the land laws and the laws of succession. That is, Property existed before the law. It is because there is Property that there is the law.


Freedom to trade by land and sea; freedom to administer civic affairs without State interference; freedom from taxation without consent; freedom from unlawful arrest, detention, dispossession, and extra-judicial execution; freedom to get high and to produce and sell alcoholic beverages; and conservation of the ancient laws of Property – these will surely benefit every suffering Indian of today. However, given our times, when absolutism has crossed far greater heights while Liberty has dived to far greater lows, I propose a few additional clauses:

  • Freedom in the choice of media of exchange. That is, an end to the fiat money monopoly; the end of “legal tender.” RBI paper notes can circulate – but we are free to refuse them. This will impose financial discipline on our The State. Inflationism will finally end. Capital will be accumulated - not consumed. Poor people will benefit greatly.

  • The Inviolability of Private Property by any actions on the part of The State – either through Legislation or through its lawless agents.This will guarantee Liberty.

  • Freedom from the National Debt: that is, an end to State borrowing. This will impose further restrictions on recklessness and irresponsibility in State spending, while also securing the prosperity of future generations.

I could add some more, but let me stop here.

What I told my visitor is that such a Charter of Liberties, if enthroned as the First Statute of the Realm, will achieve two immediate purposes: firstly, it will take The Market completely out of State purview. This will enable all of us – especially the poor – to survive. Second, it will allow us to administer our cities and towns without State interference, using our own, local resources.

My visitor pointed out that The State would still remain – and that, I said, is precisely what the English also allowed in 1215. They did not execute their King – as in the case of Charles I, or in the case of the French in 1789.

The advantage of this approach is that our The State will immediately have to “adjust its own conduct” to the new situation on the ground. Its personnel will have to change their own conception of their role in society. None of us will have to climb aboard their “pirate ship” to do that – “where angels fear to tread” etc.

Thus, I told my visitor, we will not make the mistake of the CONgress in 1947, who threw out their king only to replace him – and the Freedom that so many fought and died for flew out of the window.

The study of History is extremely useful for it allows us to search the past for examples worth emulating today.

The historic occasion on which the “irresponsible absolutist” King John was forced by public action to sign on the dotted line that Life, Liberty and Property would never be violated by arbitrary royal action is beautifully described in a passage from Jerome K Jerome’s classic Three Men in a Boat – the evergreen tale of a journey down a river. The signing of the Magna Carta took place in Runnymede, which lies on the river Thames between Staines and Windsor.

Jerome & Co. have just passed Staines and are proceeding to Windsor when the author sees Runnymede and this prompts him to reflect on that glorious day in 1215 when Englishmen won their Liberty. It must be mentioned that Jerome says he has written this “especially for inclusion in schools.” Since no school curriculum has ever contained this passage, I hope I am now doing something that would bring great joy to the spirit of Jerome, for he truly was a “jolly good fellow.” What follows is Jerome’s imaginary account of the greatest gherao in human history:

The sun had got more powerful by the time we had finished breakfast, and the wind had dropped, and it was as lovely a morning as one could desire. Little was in sight to remind us of the nineteenth century; and, as we looked out upon the river in the morning sunlight, we could almost fancy that the centuries between us and that ever-to-be-famous June morning of 1215 had been drawn aside, and that we, English yeoman’s sons in homespun cloth, with dirk [a dagger, quite like a kirpan] at belt, were waiting there to witness the writing of that stupendous page in history, the meaning whereof was to be translated to the common people some four hundred and odd years later by one, Oliver Cromwell, who had deeply studied it.

It is a fine summer morning – sunny, soft and still. But through the air there runs the thrill of coming stir. King John has slept at Duncroft Hall, and all the day before the little town of Staines has echoed to the clang of armed men, and the clatter of great horses over its rough stones, and the shouts of captains, and the grim oaths and surly jests of bearded bowmen, billmen, pikemen, and strange-speaking foreign spearmen.

Gay-cloaked companies of knights and squires have ridden in, all travel stained and dusty. And all the evening long in the timid towns – men’s doors have had to be quick opened to let in rough groups of soldiers, for whom there must be found both board and lodging, and the best of both, or woe betide the house and all within; for the sword is the judge and jury, plaintiff and executioner, in these tempestuous times, and pays for what it takes by sparing those from whom it takes it, if it pleases it to do so.

Round the camp-fire in the market-place gather still more of the Baron’s troops, and eat and drink deep, and bellow forth roistering drinking songs, and gamble and quarrel as the evening grows and deepens into night. The firelight sheds quaint shadows on their piled-up arms and on their uncouth forms. The children of the town steal around to watch them, wondering; and brawny country wenches, laughing, draw near to bandy ale-house jest and jibe with the swaggering troopers so unlike the village swains, who, now despised, stand apart behind, with vacant grins upon their broad, peering faces. And out from the fields around, glitter the faint lights of more distant camps, as here some great lord’s followers lie mustered, and there false John’s mercenaries crouching like wolves without the town.

And so, with sentinel in each dark street, and twinkling watch-fires on each height around, the night has worn away, and over the fair valley of old Thames has broken the morning of the great day that is to close so big with the fate of ages yet unborn.

Ever since grey dawn, in the lower of the two islands, just above where we are standing, there has been great clamour, and the sound of many workmen. The great pavilion brought there yester eve is being raised, and carpenters are busy nailing tiers of seats, while ‘prentices from London are there with many coloured stuffs and silks and cloth of gold and silver.

And now, lo! Down upon the road that winds along the river’s bank from Staines there comes towards us, laughing and talking together in deep guttural bass, half a score of stalwart halberdmen – Baron’s men, these – and halt at a hundred or so yards above us, on the other bank, and lean upon their arms, and wait.

And so, from hour to hour, march up along the road ever fresh groups and bands of armed men, their casques and breastplates flashing back along the long low lines of morning sunlight, until, as far as eye can reach, the way seems thick with glittering steel and prancing steeds. And shouting horsemen are galloping from group to group, and little banners are fluttering lazily in the warm breeze, and every now and then there is a deeper stir as the ranks make way on either side, and some great  Baron on his war-horse, with his guard of squires around him, passes along to take his station at the head of his serfs and vassals.

And up the slope of Cooper’s Hill, just opposite, are gathered the wondering rustics and curious townsfolk, who have run from Staines, and none are quite sure what the bustle is about, but each one has a different version of the great event that they have come to see; and some say that much good to all the people will come from this day’s work; but the old men shake their heads, for they have heard such tales before.

And all along the river down to Staines, is dotted with small craft and boats and tiny coracles – which last are growing out of favour now, and are used only by the poorer folk. Over the rapids, where in the after years trim Bell Wier lock will stand, they have been forced or dragged by their sturdy rowers, and now are crowding up as near as they dare to the great covered barges, which lie in readiness to bear King John to where the fateful Charter waits his signing.

It is noon, and we and all the people have been waiting patient for many an hour, and the rumour has run round that slippery King John has again escaped from the Baron’s grasp, and has stolen away from Duncroft Hall with his mercenaries at his heels, and will soon be doing other work that signing charters for his people’s liberty.

Not so! This time the grip upon him has been one of iron, and he has slid and wriggled in vain. Far down the road a little cloud of dust has risen, and draws nearer and grows larger, and the pattering of many hoofs grow louder, and in and out between the scattered groups of drawn-up men, there pushes on its way a brilliant cavalcade of gay-dressed lords and knights. And front and rear, and either flank, there ride the yeomen of the Barons, and in the midst King John.

He rides to where the barges lie in readiness, and the great Barons step forth from their ranks to meet him. He greets them with a smile and a laugh, and pleasant honeyed words, as though it were some feast in his honour to which he had been invited. But as he rises to dismount, he casts one hurried glance from his own French mercenaries drawn up in the rear to the grim ranks of the Baron’s men that hem him in.

Is it too late? One fierce blow at the unsuspecting horseman at his side, one cry to his French troops, one desperate charge upon the unready lines before him, and these rebellious Barons might rue the day they dared to thwart his plans! A bolder hand might have turned the game even at this point. Had it been a Richard [the Lionheart] here! The cup of liberty might have been dashed from England’s lips, and the taste of freedom held back for a hundred years.

But the heart of King John sinks before the stern faces of the English fighting men, and the arm of King John drops back onto his rein, and he dismounts and takes his seat in the foremost barge. And the Barons follow in, with each mailed hand upon the sword-hilt, and the word is given to let go.

Slowly the heavy, bright-decked barges leave the shore of Runnymede. Slowly against the swift current they work their ponderous way, till, with a low grumble, they grate against the bank of the little island that from this day will bear the name of Magna Charta Island. And King John has stepped upon the shore, and we wait in breathless silence till a great shout cleaves the air and the great cornerstone in England’s temple of liberty has, now we know, been firmly laid.

I suggested to my visitor – a lawyer trained at an eminent school – that he and his comrades draw up a Charter of Liberties and circulate it far and wide. When a “tipping point” is reached and a mass of ordinary people are fired by the idea, then “just do it.”

He paused to ask whether I would like to come aboard his “platform” and engage in public politics. I responded with these lines from an old song:

The doer and the thinker,
No allowance for the other...