Jefferson who was no doubt extremely intelligent, well read and considered in his writings, made reference to his Creator within a culturally Christian context. Respecting the liberty of others, freedom of conscience and the individual pursuit of happiness were largely ‘baked in’ to the social and cultural world he inhabited.
The question for us today is how do liberal Western democracies, once informed by Christianity and the enlightenment, deal with the illiberal in our midst, those who despise our inheritance and traditions. Britain for example sits on the brink of civiil war. It has imported millions of migrants from counties where Islam is the dominant religious and cultural world view. It is an illiberal ideology, wholly incompatible with the Western tradition.
It would appear that the leaders of Britain and Europe have chosen appeasement as a temporary ‘solution’ in the hope that the problem goes away. It isn’t going to go away and even our nearest neighbour Australia is grappling with the same issues. I would be interested in your thoughts on this phenomenon and whether a political solution exists.
Ah - the critical question. Democracy carries within it the seeds of its own downfall.
In some respects the move towards diversity worship has submerged the common values that used to underpin our community. Peter Williams wrote a piece this morning about "Who are you" to which the answer should be (but often isn't) "A New Zealander" which carries with it a sense of unity and shared values.
Hungary's Victor Orban has refused to take immigrants from Islamic countries. They had a 150 year history of Ottoman rule, and have no wish to repeat the experience. He has been criticised in the West for his 'illiberal' policies, but unaccompanied women, Jews and gay couples can walk the streets at night safely in Budapest, which is more than you can say for other large European cities.
In your opinion, why have UK and other European leaders chosen chaos over order?
Your original question Brendan, was excellent & well worded. The political solution you seek, and which I believe is desperately needed, is a strong leader with humility. We see the likes of Orban, Milei & even Trump doing their bit to save our culture from the Islamic menace (among other threats but this is the greatest right now), but strong leaders can quickly turn against what you & I appear to seek. Many Russians seem to like Putin, Xi is popular among many Chinese. Wherever the right balance lies, it is not with the gutless wimps such as Starmer or the naive luvvies (Ardern & Merkel). So I’m ready to risk a degree of power being wielded (preserving freedoms for legal citizens does not mean letting the barbarians stroll in the gate) cos if something ain’t don’t soon, western society as we know it, is well & truly fucked.
I recommend you watch any recent interviews with Professor David Betz, Kings College London on this subject. Here is one from Unherd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okLu7RgMoV4
Sadly I don't do podcasts and these interviews. So much to do - so little time. And it seems thay Betz - from the few minutes that I watched - was more concerned about the current problems in the UK than an analysis of Jefereson's Liberty - unless that comes later.
lol! David Betz on Unherd. Bless him, he does the rounds of the usual suspects. You could have also linked to the one on Infotainment Channel Triggernometry
?? If you mean Triggernometry it’s the name of a ‘anti woke’ YouTube channel, just the sort of place who’d love to give David Betz a platform because it brings clicks.
Unherd are with no little irony an online platform pushing a ‘post liberal’ ideology in complete lockstep, whilst claim to push back against ‘herd mentality’.
You might get closer to reality by reading all of the 3,004 comments on the video that have been made mostly by people who are living with the situation he describes. Consider it a free education; you would be in favour of that I presume.
Wow, three thousand comments on the internet for a single guy pushing an extreme position on ideologically driven online platforms. Yes, that’s definitely evidence the UK is about to descend into civil war. It’s not like it’s three thousand people who WANT a civil war or anything….
Certainly beats having lived there, reading & listening widely from a wife range of perspectives and listening to friends and family 👍.
It wouldn’t shock me to discover someone arguing a civil war in NZ is inevitable because of Treaty issues, and there proportionally a similar number of people willing to say ‘Yeah, they’re right’. For interest sake the numbers you cite are the equivalent of 217 NZers.
You talk about me educating myself, might I suggest you branch out beyond the ideological echo chamber you clearly exist in.
Thanks Halfling, that was a wonderful read. Jefferson was clearly inspired. ‘…endowed by the Creator’. Sadly, the very basis (or perhaps ‘genesis’ is more apposite) of the freedoms we enjoy (the Judeo-Christian worldview) has been forgotten. Little wonder that liberty is now under greater threat than I’ve seen in my lifetime.
I liked your point that freedom obliges us to engage & be informed … & opinionated I would aver!
“This was no rhetorical flourish: Jefferson genuinely believed that human beings possess liberty by virtue of their humanity, not through grants of monarchs, parliaments, or states@
Except for the 600 humans he literally owned as property of course….
Substack, where a C- level undergraduate essay passes as profound political commentary.
Of course I’m well aware of the draft version of the Declaration.
It still remains laughable that you write about Jefferson’s absolute commitment to the equality of humanity whilst not writing a single syllable on the fact he owned hundreds of the human beings, he apparently saw as equal.
But why let complexity get in the way of weird moralist defence of David Seymour’s crude attempt to impose libertarian orthodoxy on the country.
I am glad that you are amused. And it is perfectly legitimate for you to argue an anachronism. TJ was a man of his time - not ours - but his thoughts are still valid.
I am troubled by your last remark. Seymoor and libertarianism are not discussed in this article so I fail to see the piece as a "weird moralist defence ' of either.
For nthe record I have written on the characterisation of Seymour as a libertarian - he is not - rather a classical liberal.
Have a look through some of my earlier writings - if you can bear to expose yourself to more C- undergrad witterings - and you may find something.
Ah, the joyful freedom to express an opinion. I found it to be a very good read and I’ve got a couple of degrees under my belt. So probably a little better than the ‘undergrad’ status you conferred. And as we saw in the ‘Grievance Studies’, there’s a heap of shit out there that sounds all academic, but is basically crap. I suspect your scathing review is biased by whatever left wing nook you reside in perhaps?
In similar vein, if you go to Edinburg and track down Adam Smith's tombstone, it records this quote: "The property that every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable." Adam Smith
I always read it and think of the minimum wage that deprives the least employable of access to paid work at below the minimum wage. A state-imposed indignity on the liberty of a few for the benefit of the greater number of those more fortunate who can still be employed at the minimum wage.
I recall contemplating Adam Smith's statue (complete with bird on his head) when we were in Edinburgh last year. When I read the statement that you quoted I thought that John Locke would approve.
Yes, I think so too. I thought that Adam Smith's statute should be facing David Hume's since they were leaders of the Scottish Enlightenment and Adam Smith wrote a leading tribute to David Hume when the older man died. This trivial quibble aside, it was great to see them both so prominently honoured. In the RSB context, the view from its opponents that the RSB unduly elevates respect for individual dignity relative to the power of the state looks like a philosophical slide in the direction of tolerance for a more illiberal repressive and oppressive government. Unprincipled and unconstrained government seems to be what some people want. They must have faith that repressive and oppressive powers will not be abused. Human history counts for little. Even NZ history counts for little. Given this faith, parliamentary law-making sovereignty and a more accountable executive also seem to count for little, or nothing. Constitutionally, it is scary.
Some great points. I reckon much of it is simply that people are just ignorant. I’m talking pig-shit thick. They don’t have faith in anything much, mainly cos they just don’t understand it. Which perhaps explains why the Greens consistently poll above 10%. Democracy is a fine thing, but for it to work, people must have some level of intelligence. Sadly our education system does not turn out great thinkers. Critical thinking has been replaced by ‘critical theory’, the latter entrenched through brainwashing, thereby becoming immune to the former. Until we teach kids the ‘significance’ of history, and how to reflect on its lessons, the power ain’t gonna rest with the people.
I’m sure if you read a quote on a tombstone you do think think that. Actually read A Theory of Moral & The Wealth of Nations which clock in about 650,000 words you might no think something so simplistically silly.
I see on your substack you have not yet actually written anything original and thus exposed yourself to the sort of comment you are making here. I look forward to something eventuating.
I’m not supposed to point out to someone they’ve clearly not actually read Adam Smith and have made laughably simplistic comment with a degree of absolute certainty, unless I write Substack think pieces?
Sure thing 🤦🏽
Maybe actually read and engage with breadth of a thinkers’ views before adopting them to advance your extreme ideological position, is hardly a controversial take. 🤷🏼♂️
This is a very inspiring read to start the morning. I'll read it again and also listen to the Deborah Russell recording (I was very unimpressed when viewing her responses in one of the submissions hearings about transgender Bills). But I have to admit I'm not really clear on some meanings of terms in your piece - self-rule, self-government, popular sovereignty, democratic self-rule. Sorry to be obtuse, but can you explain?
TJ was a true democrat and favoured very much the power of the people model. In that respect many of his critics suggested he was "infected" with the ideas of the French Revolution given that he was US ambassador to France at that time. She when he refers to self-rule and self-government he is describing the role of individuals in the process. The issue of government always devolved upon the people rather than the institutions. That is what is meant by popular sovereignty - the people are sovereign, not the King nor the President. And from that you get to democratic self-rule which is the people determining the scope of government - not the Government itself. In NZ the Legislature is sovereign. TJ would not have agreed. It is the people who put the Legislature in place who are sovereign.
Thank you for that explanation. It does raise other questions but I'll think on't and read all the comments that come up here. I've never read Jefferson and know very little about him. Your article makes me very inclined to admire him.
Jefferson who was no doubt extremely intelligent, well read and considered in his writings, made reference to his Creator within a culturally Christian context. Respecting the liberty of others, freedom of conscience and the individual pursuit of happiness were largely ‘baked in’ to the social and cultural world he inhabited.
The question for us today is how do liberal Western democracies, once informed by Christianity and the enlightenment, deal with the illiberal in our midst, those who despise our inheritance and traditions. Britain for example sits on the brink of civiil war. It has imported millions of migrants from counties where Islam is the dominant religious and cultural world view. It is an illiberal ideology, wholly incompatible with the Western tradition.
It would appear that the leaders of Britain and Europe have chosen appeasement as a temporary ‘solution’ in the hope that the problem goes away. It isn’t going to go away and even our nearest neighbour Australia is grappling with the same issues. I would be interested in your thoughts on this phenomenon and whether a political solution exists.
Ah - the critical question. Democracy carries within it the seeds of its own downfall.
In some respects the move towards diversity worship has submerged the common values that used to underpin our community. Peter Williams wrote a piece this morning about "Who are you" to which the answer should be (but often isn't) "A New Zealander" which carries with it a sense of unity and shared values.
Jonthan Ayling wrote an excellent piece about remembering the virtues of Western Civilisation. It is here - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/we-must-remember-the-virtues-of-western-civilisation-jonathan-ayling/MMKW7JFZBJDCDDD7MHRPSALXSQ/
So no political solution then.
Unless you favour an authoritarian type enforcement regime which TJ would find intolerable….
Hungary's Victor Orban has refused to take immigrants from Islamic countries. They had a 150 year history of Ottoman rule, and have no wish to repeat the experience. He has been criticised in the West for his 'illiberal' policies, but unaccompanied women, Jews and gay couples can walk the streets at night safely in Budapest, which is more than you can say for other large European cities.
In your opinion, why have UK and other European leaders chosen chaos over order?
Your original question Brendan, was excellent & well worded. The political solution you seek, and which I believe is desperately needed, is a strong leader with humility. We see the likes of Orban, Milei & even Trump doing their bit to save our culture from the Islamic menace (among other threats but this is the greatest right now), but strong leaders can quickly turn against what you & I appear to seek. Many Russians seem to like Putin, Xi is popular among many Chinese. Wherever the right balance lies, it is not with the gutless wimps such as Starmer or the naive luvvies (Ardern & Merkel). So I’m ready to risk a degree of power being wielded (preserving freedoms for legal citizens does not mean letting the barbarians stroll in the gate) cos if something ain’t don’t soon, western society as we know it, is well & truly fucked.
“Britain for example sits on the brink of civiil war”
Nice to see there’s plenty of people sharing Elon’s fever dream.
I recommend you watch any recent interviews with Professor David Betz, Kings College London on this subject. Here is one from Unherd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okLu7RgMoV4
Thanks for the reference.
Sadly I don't do podcasts and these interviews. So much to do - so little time. And it seems thay Betz - from the few minutes that I watched - was more concerned about the current problems in the UK than an analysis of Jefereson's Liberty - unless that comes later.
lol! David Betz on Unherd. Bless him, he does the rounds of the usual suspects. You could have also linked to the one on Infotainment Channel Triggernometry
I take it that your mispelling is intended and is a play on words.
?? If you mean Triggernometry it’s the name of a ‘anti woke’ YouTube channel, just the sort of place who’d love to give David Betz a platform because it brings clicks.
Unherd are with no little irony an online platform pushing a ‘post liberal’ ideology in complete lockstep, whilst claim to push back against ‘herd mentality’.
I don't "do" YouTube - so much to do, so little time.
As to ideology I wonder what you see when you look in the mirror.
You might get closer to reality by reading all of the 3,004 comments on the video that have been made mostly by people who are living with the situation he describes. Consider it a free education; you would be in favour of that I presume.
Wow, three thousand comments on the internet for a single guy pushing an extreme position on ideologically driven online platforms. Yes, that’s definitely evidence the UK is about to descend into civil war. It’s not like it’s three thousand people who WANT a civil war or anything….
Certainly beats having lived there, reading & listening widely from a wife range of perspectives and listening to friends and family 👍.
It wouldn’t shock me to discover someone arguing a civil war in NZ is inevitable because of Treaty issues, and there proportionally a similar number of people willing to say ‘Yeah, they’re right’. For interest sake the numbers you cite are the equivalent of 217 NZers.
You talk about me educating myself, might I suggest you branch out beyond the ideological echo chamber you clearly exist in.
Might be an idea to look in the mirror, Miller.
Thanks Halfling, that was a wonderful read. Jefferson was clearly inspired. ‘…endowed by the Creator’. Sadly, the very basis (or perhaps ‘genesis’ is more apposite) of the freedoms we enjoy (the Judeo-Christian worldview) has been forgotten. Little wonder that liberty is now under greater threat than I’ve seen in my lifetime.
I liked your point that freedom obliges us to engage & be informed … & opinionated I would aver!
Thanks Boris.
I agree with the last comment.
I think TJ said something about the refreshing of the Tree of Liberty as well....
“This was no rhetorical flourish: Jefferson genuinely believed that human beings possess liberty by virtue of their humanity, not through grants of monarchs, parliaments, or states@
Except for the 600 humans he literally owned as property of course….
Substack, where a C- level undergraduate essay passes as profound political commentary.
Ah - I wondered if the slavery issue would come up.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence where he had some things to say about slavery.
As to the quality - I don't write for a grade. But I do have degrees to doctorate level so the undergrad thing doesn't apply.
But thanks for the comment
Of course I’m well aware of the draft version of the Declaration.
It still remains laughable that you write about Jefferson’s absolute commitment to the equality of humanity whilst not writing a single syllable on the fact he owned hundreds of the human beings, he apparently saw as equal.
But why let complexity get in the way of weird moralist defence of David Seymour’s crude attempt to impose libertarian orthodoxy on the country.
I am glad that you are amused. And it is perfectly legitimate for you to argue an anachronism. TJ was a man of his time - not ours - but his thoughts are still valid.
I am troubled by your last remark. Seymoor and libertarianism are not discussed in this article so I fail to see the piece as a "weird moralist defence ' of either.
For nthe record I have written on the characterisation of Seymour as a libertarian - he is not - rather a classical liberal.
Have a look through some of my earlier writings - if you can bear to expose yourself to more C- undergrad witterings - and you may find something.
Ah, the joyful freedom to express an opinion. I found it to be a very good read and I’ve got a couple of degrees under my belt. So probably a little better than the ‘undergrad’ status you conferred. And as we saw in the ‘Grievance Studies’, there’s a heap of shit out there that sounds all academic, but is basically crap. I suspect your scathing review is biased by whatever left wing nook you reside in perhaps?
Yes, we do tend to enjoy reading things that just confirm our political priors.
I was unaware that priors were political. I thought they were Church people.
In similar vein, if you go to Edinburg and track down Adam Smith's tombstone, it records this quote: "The property that every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable." Adam Smith
I always read it and think of the minimum wage that deprives the least employable of access to paid work at below the minimum wage. A state-imposed indignity on the liberty of a few for the benefit of the greater number of those more fortunate who can still be employed at the minimum wage.
I recall contemplating Adam Smith's statue (complete with bird on his head) when we were in Edinburgh last year. When I read the statement that you quoted I thought that John Locke would approve.
Yes, I think so too. I thought that Adam Smith's statute should be facing David Hume's since they were leaders of the Scottish Enlightenment and Adam Smith wrote a leading tribute to David Hume when the older man died. This trivial quibble aside, it was great to see them both so prominently honoured. In the RSB context, the view from its opponents that the RSB unduly elevates respect for individual dignity relative to the power of the state looks like a philosophical slide in the direction of tolerance for a more illiberal repressive and oppressive government. Unprincipled and unconstrained government seems to be what some people want. They must have faith that repressive and oppressive powers will not be abused. Human history counts for little. Even NZ history counts for little. Given this faith, parliamentary law-making sovereignty and a more accountable executive also seem to count for little, or nothing. Constitutionally, it is scary.
Some great points. I reckon much of it is simply that people are just ignorant. I’m talking pig-shit thick. They don’t have faith in anything much, mainly cos they just don’t understand it. Which perhaps explains why the Greens consistently poll above 10%. Democracy is a fine thing, but for it to work, people must have some level of intelligence. Sadly our education system does not turn out great thinkers. Critical thinking has been replaced by ‘critical theory’, the latter entrenched through brainwashing, thereby becoming immune to the former. Until we teach kids the ‘significance’ of history, and how to reflect on its lessons, the power ain’t gonna rest with the people.
I’m sure if you read a quote on a tombstone you do think think that. Actually read A Theory of Moral & The Wealth of Nations which clock in about 650,000 words you might no think something so simplistically silly.
I see on your substack you have not yet actually written anything original and thus exposed yourself to the sort of comment you are making here. I look forward to something eventuating.
I’m not supposed to point out to someone they’ve clearly not actually read Adam Smith and have made laughably simplistic comment with a degree of absolute certainty, unless I write Substack think pieces?
Sure thing 🤦🏽
Maybe actually read and engage with breadth of a thinkers’ views before adopting them to advance your extreme ideological position, is hardly a controversial take. 🤷🏼♂️
Hey Miller
Chill man
This is a very inspiring read to start the morning. I'll read it again and also listen to the Deborah Russell recording (I was very unimpressed when viewing her responses in one of the submissions hearings about transgender Bills). But I have to admit I'm not really clear on some meanings of terms in your piece - self-rule, self-government, popular sovereignty, democratic self-rule. Sorry to be obtuse, but can you explain?
Not a problem.
TJ was a true democrat and favoured very much the power of the people model. In that respect many of his critics suggested he was "infected" with the ideas of the French Revolution given that he was US ambassador to France at that time. She when he refers to self-rule and self-government he is describing the role of individuals in the process. The issue of government always devolved upon the people rather than the institutions. That is what is meant by popular sovereignty - the people are sovereign, not the King nor the President. And from that you get to democratic self-rule which is the people determining the scope of government - not the Government itself. In NZ the Legislature is sovereign. TJ would not have agreed. It is the people who put the Legislature in place who are sovereign.
I hope this clarifies.
Thank you for that explanation. It does raise other questions but I'll think on't and read all the comments that come up here. I've never read Jefferson and know very little about him. Your article makes me very inclined to admire him.