Politics is the idea that tyranny is an arbitrary power, in contrast to the rule of law underlying the entire classical liberal tradition (see Locke’s treatment of the Second Government [1690, Chapter 18]). With any authority, the powers of the State or other central polytel can discriminate against subjects by bribeing their supporters and injuring their enemies. In reality, public discrimination (in the sense of national discrimination) is the probability of arbitrary synonymous power.
The gradual discovery of the rule of law eats the idea that the state should not discriminate against citizens, residents, or even foreigners. In your country, if you kill foreigners without justification, your own liberal government will come after you. John Hicks, the 1972 Nobel Prize in Economics, recalled this high-quality form of ideal in the 19th century. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942]:
Liberals in Manchester believed in free trade not only because of the fairness of English, but also because of the fairness between English and foreigners. The state, which they held, should not discriminate against its citizens. It should also not discriminate against its own citizens and others.
Modern classical liberalism is firmly fixed in its tradition. Friedrich Hayek defended the rule of law as a set of abstract and typical negative rules that apply equally to all individuals (see the amount of law, law, and freedom crap reviewed in Econlib). James Buchanan’s concept of “generality” represents the same ideal with different conceptual foundations. Buchanan’s theory defines the social contract as a unanimously accepted rule that also binds the state (see his Limits of Freedom: Between Anarchy and Leviathan, which I reviewed in Econ Lib). I will stop the constitutional amendment that prohibited the government from prohibiting discrimination through US property (no Crony!), the fiscal deficit (normal age), and free trade, internal and external regulations (see December 4, 2005, his “Three Amendments: Responsibility, Generality, and Freedom of Nature).
A simple example of the principle of generality or non-governmental discrimination can be seen in ways that determine the age of the majority. Looking at certain cases, it is clear that individual maturities and personal responsibilities are summed at various ages. However, the authority to determine individual cases would involve unacceptable discrimination between individuals who have been granted individual freedom, and unacceptable discrimination between those who are forced to remind them of the only non-discriminatory solution (no drinking or buying tobacco).
Given the power gained by modern states, the ban on public discrimination is even more important – even in civil wars, halting government power to discrimination against black people, supporting slave owners who protect “property.” You can now destroy individuals or groups that the ruler dislikes. (non-discrimination), and even use the military to impose orders on sub-citizens.
Anthony, an economist and political philosopher by Jasay, mentions discriminatory states as sub-citizens and “hospital nations” and “ally” to others (read his classic 1985 book, “The State.” This phenomenon is so prevalent that most people don’t notice it. To give an example, why do governments want to lower the price of a home (compared to other prices)? Usually they’re on their side with current homeowners who have an important part of their home savings. Jasay also believed that the state is discriminatory in nature, and that the Constitution cannot change this – it opposes him with mainstream liberals such as Hayek and Buchanan.
The objection that government discrimination cannot be evacuated by calling a ban on murder, theft or other crime is non-secret. There is a virtual unanimity among citizens to ban Toheles Crime. Even the murderer doesn’t want to be killed. Victim-free crime is another issue where the government is hurting Paul to help Pierre. Most drug consumers and dealers are also adult citizens!
The Harvard University example tells you that you have been threatened by the current administration, essentially because of ideas defended there. For Buchanan and Hayek, government subsidies to Harvard are justifiable if they are available to other universities as well. Anyway, you can’t get used to threatening private Instads and accept dictatts from politicians. Jasay suspects that someone who left the Valley of Tears in 2019 will use this case to repeat his argument that generality is impossible (see the justice and the environment of his books. (I apologize for quoting my book review once again. Potential, I get the false and dangerous impression that I have reviewed all the important books of the past 100 years.)
What is certain is that there is no classic liberal argument to support a naked, discriminatory nation. This reflection also suggests that there are three options for the future of human society: tyranny (left or right, democratic), generality (standard classical liberalism), and disorder (if it works, stateless freedom).
As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns it from qualified purchases.
The referee agrees with the black team
