https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ Locke's idea of the primacy of individual freedom in life, must be the basis of any democratic constitution. It is mitigated by the idea of a social contract (Thomas Hobbs, Rousseau) between individual and state, by which individuals and lower order groups or corporations, give up some of those freedoms in return for protection provided by the state against enemies without and within. John Stuart Mill as regards the relationship between individuals, suggests the freedom of action, is limited only by the harm done to others. In other words there is a fundamental ability to act freely, unless and until the action impinges adversely on others. In large and sophisticated nation states, the power to make the rules is delegated to a Parliament. We have a tri-partite parliament (Commons, Lords, Sovereign) with a tri-part separation of powers between Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, that together create and enforce 'the Rule of Law'. The difficulty arises when those very laws impinge upon the fundamental right to the life, liberty and property of the individual. Power and authority was once claimed to flow (downwards'?) from God to the King, as distinct from the people (upwards'?) through elected representatives in Parliament assembled. England engaged in a bloody war over the principle. In the end superior force and violence settled the issue, at least for a few years, ironically resulting in essentially a military dictatorship, but it was not until 1688/9 that the issue obtained written clarification in a new Constitution. In a sense the Constitutional Settlement was an evolutionary fudge retaining an hereditary monarch but severely limiting its executive power to two subservient houses of Parliament, the remnants of which arrangement still exist. But the problem of over-reaching executive power, though not claiming to come direct from God, is still with us. Now it issues from Number 10 and all the shadowy back room boys in the Cabinet Office and Secret Service departments. The covid so-called 'crisis' has brought the issue into practical stark relief. Fundamental freedoms of religion, association, movement, business and behaviour have been drastically infringed, it is argued to protect us from disease. We are back to the nature of relationship between individual and state. It is an unfair match. All are forced to conform or face criminal sanctions. Who is to set the limits to this executive power if neither Parliament or the executive will ?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ Locke's idea of the primacy of individual freedom in life, must be the basis of any democratic constitution. It is mitigated by the idea of a social contract (Thomas Hobbs, Rousseau) between individual and state, by which individuals and lower order groups or corporations, give up some of those freedoms in return for protection provided by the state against enemies without and within. John Stuart Mill as regards the relationship between individuals, suggests the freedom of action, is limited only by the harm done to others. In other words there is a fundamental ability to act freely, unless and until the action impinges adversely on others. In large and sophisticated nation states, the power to make the rules is delegated to a Parliament. We have a tri-partite parliament (Commons, Lords, Sovereign) with a tri-part separation of powers between Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, that together create and enforce 'the Rule of Law'. The difficulty arises when those very laws impinge upon the fundamental right to the life, liberty and property of the individual. Power and authority was once claimed to flow (downwards'?) from God to the King, as distinct from the people (upwards'?) through elected representatives in Parliament assembled. England engaged in a bloody war over the principle. In the end superior force and violence settled the issue, at least for a few years, ironically resulting in essentially a military dictatorship, but it was not until 1688/9 that the issue obtained written clarification in a new Constitution. In a sense the Constitutional Settlement was an evolutionary fudge retaining an hereditary monarch but severely limiting its executive power to two subservient houses of Parliament, the remnants of which arrangement still exist. But the problem of over-reaching executive power, though not claiming to come direct from God, is still with us. Now it issues from Number 10 and all the shadowy back room boys in the Cabinet Office and Secret Service departments. The covid so-called 'crisis' has brought the issue into practical stark relief. Fundamental freedoms of religion, association, movement, business and behaviour have been drastically infringed, it is argued to protect us from disease. We are back to the nature of relationship between individual and state. It is an unfair match. All are forced to conform or face criminal sanctions. Who is to set the limits to this executive power if neither Parliament or the executive will ?
ReplyDelete