The reformist, if words are the only guide, is
more concerned about a better future for mankind
than the liberal. Are liberals unconcerned about
human problems? They do not often give the
impression that they are. Liberals are probably as
concerned, though they do not waffle or talk about
it in the same way as socialists. The paradox is that
freedom related values have a better record of
providing for human needs and reducing poverty than
socialist and Marxist regulationism.
If people are concerned about peace, poverty,
inequality and human problems, where should their
priorities lie? They should start with themselves.
This is the very reverse of the approach of the
reformists. They are motivated to change other
people and are often unconcerned about their own
standards. They often fail to realise the hypocrisy in
the difference between their affluent lifestyles and their
concern for human poverty and suffering. Justice Murphy in
a judgement said that property rights belong to a
bygone era. If he had lived, he would have retired
with a large sum of money drawn from judicial
and parliamentary superannuation funds and converted
these into property.
A better world requires better human beings. A better
world needs more of the practice of sincere
religion (any religion) or genuine humanism. The
emphasis is on sincere religion because of the
corrupting effect institutional structures have had
on religion. It is not suggested that the
institutionalised church should come back into politics
or that the church should lay down political guidelines for
the faithful. Unfortunately, the battle to reduce the power
of the institutionalised church in politics has also
had the effect that moral values have been taken out
of politics. Moral values and standards of conduct
must be brought back into public life. A better
future for mankind requires individuals to change.
In the recent period of rampant educational,
technological and material development it is
debatable whether man's capacity to get on with his
fellow human beings has been in any degree increased.
Has it in any way increased in the wake of the
developments of the last one hundred years or more?
If the wars, the localised wars and the many examples
of man's inhumanity to man which are prevalent in the world
today are analysed, it cannot be said that in terms of
toleration mankind has in any meaningful sense
moved forward.
The main problems which face western society today
are: the growing incapacity of the political system,
the family, education processes and society to
produce sufficient responsible citizens with a sense
of public duty and the drift towards careless
individualism, discontented egoism, nihilism,
destructive values and mindless idealism. There is
no threat of a violent revolution to overthrow the system
and establish a Marxist state. The danger that exists is
twofold. First there is the gradual destruction of
much that is worth preserving, with little that is
constructive being put in its place, because of unfair
criticism of what "is" and "mindless idealism" in
relation to what ought to be. Second, the growth of
government leads to control of individuals and
institutions as well as drying up the springs of
initiative, innovation, enterprise and individual
responsibility, creating dependency and, most importantly,
giving rise to groups which obtain a disproportionate part
of the resources of the country, exploiting the
majority.
The values and institutions of the western democratic
order are far from perfect. Perfection or
anything near perfection is an unobtainable ideal.
Reform must proceed in this context. The wrong ideas
and turnings in the reform process are analysed above:
ideologically based reform which rejects community
values, the liberal tradition and the evolved
solution; the practice of avoiding evaluation by
focusing on the weakness of the system and ignoring its
strengths; and the identification of modernisation with
social engineering.
The main problem of the future is of the critical
spirit, which has made a tremendous contribution
to western civilisation, running riot in a narrow,
counter productive manner, destroying what exists
without practical and viable alternatives. Communism
consumed the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, parts of
Eastern Europe, and other countries through the
forcible destruction of one system and the establishment
of another. There are both positive and destructive aspects
of communist states, with the destructive aspects definitely
in the ascendancy. However, the problems that
face well-established representative democracies
with strong private enterprise infrastructures, are
big government, the control of the many by a few and
a gradual undermining and destruction of the system
without constructive alternatives.
There is no danger of a Soviet type or any other
Communist type state being established in Australia
or the western democracies. The long term future, if
the present trends continue, will be
characterised by the following developments.
Increasing economic problems and growing
unemployment. A gradual undermining, without viable
alternatives, of the values and institutions which have
contributed to the rise and prosperity of
western civilisation. Increasing government
regulation and bureaucratisation (which limit
individual freedom and the scope for effort,
motivation and achievement). A growing demand for
government activity and welfarism. Inability of
governments to cater to such demands. The use of civil
disobedience, violent dissent and terrorism by dissatisfied
groups, causing inconvenience and disruption and
the inevitable counter reaction of governments
(whether socialist or of any other complexion)
involving restrictions on civil liberties. The
placing of restrictions on trade union and industrial
activity. A state which maintains the institutions and
trappings of liberal democracy but has accumulated
reservoirs of bureaucratic power, limiting civil
liberties and using escalating emergency powers to stifle
dissent and control violent groups. A central government
which cannot exercise adequate control over
its bureaucracies, and favoured private
organisations. In this respect there would be a
fundamental difference with a communist state. Nor
will the internal security forces be as efficient and
ruthless as those of the communist state. There could
be a partial withering away of the state - a
bureaucratic giant monster in which few things work as
intended (but not a withering away of the State as
in Marxist theory nor the rise of a brutal
repressive and oppressive state as in Marxist practice)
This is the future prospect, unless the force of
ideas and common sense can cause a change in direction.
The attack on the values and institutions of the
western democratic order has been highlighted. I have
not painted a rosy picture. I do not want to end on a
note of pessimism. What of the future? There are
reasons for pessimism and for optimism. A great deal
depends on how supporters of liberal values respond to
the challenges of our times. The analogy has been
drawn between Rome and Western civilisation. The
fall of Rome was preceded by permissiveness and growth of
bureaucracy and welfarism but there ends the analogy. Rome
did not have the benefit of scientific and
technological development. Roman civilisation in its
creative periods did not have the civilising
influence of Christianity and Christian based
morality which, despite the faults and failures of
the Church and individual Christians, has been the
driving force in the liberal tradition.
I leave you with Macauley's words, "It's a great time
to be alive." It is a great time to be alive and a
great place in which to be alive. Would you rather be
alive now or in 1850 or 1750 or 1550 or in medieval
times? Would you rather be in Australia or in Russia
or in Chile or in Libya or in South Africa? There is
hope for the future if concerned liberals can rise up
and face the problems and challenges of our times.
The future depends on individuals rising up to
challenge the coercive utopians and the proponents of
permissive nihilism.
No, or little, allowance is made in the reformist
mind set for imperfections that will exist in any
human situation. The human limitations that will
affect the judgment and horizons of the drafters
and administrators of legislation are not taken into
account. Reforms are formulated without consideration
of the financial costs and possible counter
productive effects. The consequent restrictions on freedom,
initiative and the striving for excellence that are
necessary consequences of government regulation are
not appreciated. The strengths in the
pre-existing evolved situations are not taken into
consideration. The problems which arise from
government action and the unpredictability of the
practical operation of legislation (the practice
being very different from the stated aims) and the cost and
financial implications for government and for the tax-paying
community are ignored.
Many critical
analyses of human problems and solutions, based on
proposals for legislation leading to government
regulation of the economy and social matters, proceed on the
identification of a problem and a perceived need for
action. The proponents of the need for action to deal
with a problem or an injustice do not ask the
question whether it is practical and possible to
draft a law and put it into effect. The need
leads to regulation without a consideration of
the possibilities. They do not take account of
the complexities involved in forecasting human
action and interaction, the natural limitations in the
hearts and minds of the men who will be the legislators and
the administrators, the restrictive effects of
regulations on human action and initiative and the
financial costs of regulation for business, for
those affected and for government (the financial
costs for government being borne by the tax payer).
The above comments are not intended to
deny the inherent value of all empirical social
science research. There has been much valuable
research. But a great deal of research has emanated
from the social sciences which ignores or fails to
give due weight to basic common sense
perspectives, the values and institutions of the western
order, the lessons of history and the reality of a
world composed of individuals each one different from
the other.
The guiding mental picture of justice is that
of the balancing of the scales of justice. What
the common law historically offered was not really
justice, but a balancing of competing interests. When
a mother of three children is killed by a reckless or
drunken driver, can justice be provided to the
widower and children? How can justice be meted out
to a man who while drunk has accidentally killed.
| « Next » | « Democratic Tradition » | « Topics Concerning Australia » | « Home » |