Ed Joyce over on the shiny new Liberal Vision blog laments that, so far, On Liberty’s 150th Anniversary has gone unmarked. I think that’s just not good enough, although we do still have over 6 months to put it right.
Do we have an On Liberty Blogging Carnival? Should we send a copy of On Liberty to every single Lib Dem MP (can’t think where I got that idea)?
On Liberty is important enough to justify doing something. Anyone with me?
Sara Scarlett said...
14 May 09 at 6:31 pm
I’m with you, Charlotte!! Woohoo!
Go team On Liberty!
Niklas Smith said...
14 May 09 at 7:14 pm
Absolutely! On Liberty is one of the best political books ever written and possibly the best concise summary of (and argument for) liberalism.
A blogging carnival sounds interesting. Sending a copy to every Lib Dem MP is perfectly possible, but perhaps doesn’t have the same public impact. Getting TV and/or radio to do programmes on Mill and liberty would be a good idea – and is very topical. Maybe time to start writing letters to the BBC, as Ziggy suggested? Is there a special address for programme suggestions?
Tom James said...
14 May 09 at 8:27 pm
Perhaps a “do what you feel day”, but of course subject to the harm principle so you don’t get Groundskeeper Willy not bothering to oil the Ferris wheel.
Also there should be a Ferris wheel.
thechristophe said...
14 May 09 at 8:55 pm
There is an address at the bottom of this link
Factual Entertainment Treatments
Factual Entertainment ideas only, we do not accept proposals of a documentary or General Factual nature)
BBC Factual Entertainment Development
Room 4010, BBC Television Centre
Wood Lane
London, W12 7RJ
How about blog posts by all Lib Dem bloggers asking, how much further do we have to go to reach Mill’s world?
Joe Otten said...
14 May 09 at 9:21 pm
Yup.
Anton Howes said...
14 May 09 at 9:51 pm
I’m open to helping out
Robert Doyle said...
14 May 09 at 9:59 pm
Oops. I left my comment on the shiny new Liberal Vision blog rather than here!
[awaits removal from the Christmas or Winterval card lists of social liberal acquaintances!]
Jennie said...
14 May 09 at 10:28 pm
I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that OL was published in November, so I was planning on doing my annual Bonfire Night post on this.
I could be completely wrong, though.
Roger Thornhill said...
14 May 09 at 10:29 pm
Maybe the first thing to do is direct them to JS Mill’s view on Social Rights (and thus, Social Justice).
Thing is, if they heeded that, then they would be at odds with their party.
Niklas Smith said...
15 May 09 at 9:52 am
@Roger Thornhill: Actually, Mill’s discussion of the idea of “social rights” is entirely in the context of his disagreement with arguments for the prohibition of alcohol – see chapter 4 (do a search for “social rights” and you will find the relevant paragraph).
Mill doesn’t really discuss “social justice”; the phrase doesn’t appear in On Liberty. In fact he argues, in the beginning of chapter 5, that the argument for free markets rests on a different foundation from the argument for individual liberty, and that in principle society may regulate the economy:
This is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, which rests on grounds different from, though equally solid with, the principle of individual liberty asserted in this Essay. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, quâ restraint, is an evil: but the restraints in question affect only that part of conduct which society is competent to restrain, and are wrong solely because they do not really produce the results which it is desired to produce by them.
(The above argument is actually one area in which I disagree with Mill – individual liberty does have an impact on whether certain regulations of the economy are right in principle, as Johan Norberg has argued.)
In other writings such as Principles of Political Economy (1848) Mill does go into more detail on economics, and there he does concern himself with economics and equity. For example, he wrote: “I conceive it to be highly desirable, that the certainty of subsistence should be held out by law to the destitute able-bodied…. Since the state must necessarily provide subsistence for the criminal poor while undergoing punishment, not to do the same for the poor who have not offended is to give a premium on crime.” (Chapter XI, §13.)
However, the general thrust of his thought seems to be that it would be better to reform capitalism (for example by taxing inheritance punitively and “life incomes” less) than to opt for socialism – not least because socialism would threat the individuality and diversity that he so treasures.
Sorry for the length of the comment, but Mill is fascinating and I easily get carried away
Niklas Smith said...
15 May 09 at 9:57 am
Unfortunately the link to Chapter XI seems not to include the quotation I used – see this link for the whole book: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/101
Roger Thornhill said...
15 May 09 at 10:26 am
Niklas,
You are conflating Welfare with Social Justice/Social Rights. Social Justice is built upon Social Rights, btw, so once JS Mill kicks Social Rights away, Social Justice has no foundation.
Niklas Smith said...
15 May 09 at 10:33 am
Sorry, I thought you meant (social) welfare by “social justice”, as the left always do. (This is the problem with being surrounded by student Marxists!)
So what exactly does social justice mean? Rawls seems to make a statement that runs counter to the idea that social justice involves restricting individual rights for the good of society: “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.” (From Wikipedia.)
And yet when it is used in political discourse “social justice” usually involves minimum wages, redistribution of wealth and strongly progressive taxation. What does it mean?
Charlotte Gore said...
15 May 09 at 10:36 am
Funnily enough I used that same quote from Rawls against ‘Social Justice’ as we know it and was accused of being a smart arse
Stu said...
15 May 09 at 11:52 am
That would be because you *were* being a smart arse, Charlotte
Charlotte Gore said...
15 May 09 at 1:23 pm
Well, yes
Bishop Hill said...
15 May 09 at 3:38 pm
Bu coincidence, I have an “On Liberty” project nearing completion (although it’s fair to say it’s been at that state for over a year). Must finish it off.
Roger Thornhill said...
15 May 09 at 3:43 pm
Rawls appears to be talking about justice in the social sphere – justice for individuals, and as such his view is similar to JS Mill’s AFAICT.
The term “social justice” is like “deprivation” and “progressive” – distorted, hijacked terms used to further some squalid Leftie agenda that cannot exist without a nice term to shield it from the sunlight.
“social” in the second context is the mob, the majority, the squeaky wheels and ax-grinders. Hence, damnable.