Replies

Off topic is not a problem as long as no one is posting to this big montster.

Your judges then, are the Philosopher-King of Plato as opposed to corruptible representatives.

I'm afraid that mankind is too dedicated to Participatory modes of government to ever retreat to that playing field.

The real rule for that transitory opinion issue is to restore a widely understood sense of Deliberative Representation as opposed to pliebisitory representation. Burke's speach to the Electors at Bristol, etc. George Will has written some excellent discourse on that as well in Restoration

The more power collected in the Judiciary, the more that avarice and personal whim will alway overwhelm the pride and reputation checks in many holding the office.

As Hayek says above in a number of ways, the variety and complexity of the institutions and forms of law themselves aid in their ability to withstand corruption and personal will.

Speaking of kings, I regret not substituting "hundred sheep outvoting the shepherd" for the banal reference to two wolves above. Yes, after some wandering around in libertarian pastures, I came to the conclusion that feudalism safeguards freedom better than constitutional republic.

Does progress toward freedom necessarily require going back? Modern life allows for multiple overlapping vassal-suzerain relationships that are not based on territorial proximity. These are relationships we form for physical protection (less and less locally centered; the Pentagon presently insists that my physical protection is to be found in skies over Bagdad), protection from fraud (where is Visa? where is FBI?), or insurance (where is Prudential?), or even, were I sufficiently rich, jurisprudence (where is Shapiro?). I don't want to control these professionals through the voting booth and of course I cannot. What I want is to switch providers, -- not only of justice, but of all these functions the government seems to be in charge of, when I feel like it. That is new feudalism, that is also freedom.