According to Bagehot, it is through its dignified parts that a government gains authority and through the efficient parts that a government’s power is employed; i.e. authority and legitimacy from the people is gleaned through the monarch as it elicits support and feelings of attachment through its grandeur and its majesty. The executive and legislature spend the power granted to it on that authority. The voting that we somehow over the years have decided is the “be all and end all” is meant to be just one cog in a machine of checks and balances that is weighted towards conservatism. After all, when a country has a constitution, there isn’t much that a government can do that is new and radical. I believe that our troubles truly are rooted in the erosion of our constitution, and a revival is required.
Freedom means having a constitution. Freedom doesn’t rely on the existence of democracy to define it. Democracy is like dictatorship if there isn’t a constitution; the two wolves voting to eat the lamb for dinner combine to represent the single will of a dictator. On the other hand, a constitution can guarantee that there will never be a vote on lamb-eating, and thus it protects the rights of the minority; they are free.
A constitution, then, means restricting the full expression of the democratic will of the people for everyone’s own good. If this sounds objectionable for seemingly treating people like fools, then let it be more evidence that man is demonstrably and perpetually at risk from his own folly. Besides which, remember what else Franklin said: “Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants”; meaning that there is a necessary requirement for a restriction of man’s aspirations for power. The question is, do we prefer a little limitation to stave off the unscrupulous would-be tyrant, or would we rather have a lot when the tyrant has been crowned Emperor?
A constitution is a stipulation of what is permissible in the transactions between the State and an individual. It would not be an instrument of freedom if it were contaminated with too many regulations, and so it is based on a small set of laws (because a free society does not too readily criminalise its people) regarding what transactions are not possible between individuals; fundamentally, ones which protect private property (including the property of one’s own person). To have a constitution, then, a society must have a moral code by which it adheres to in an ardent way. Because there are only a few things that are prohibited, and everything else is theoretically permissible, then individuals must rely on their moral judgement system to guide them in their social transactions so as not to cause harm to the property of others (again, including aspects of bodily and spiritual function of the person). With the onus on the execution of personal responsibility, theoretically there is less of a need for legislation and governmental interference.
We should recognise such a constitution-bearing society because up until very recently ours had evolved into one. We had the Judeo-Christian moral code as our judgment system; the 10 Commandments were the basic laws prescribing the protection of property; it instructed us in the raising of the next generation to adhere to the law and therefore maintain the integrity of society, and the honourable behaviour in the individual to ensure that the law is executed justly.
At that point in our history, if a tyrant wanted to rule Britain, he would have had to do away with our constitution, with our notion of the right to hold property and wealth exclusively of the State, with our notion of what social integrity and justice entails; he would first have to do away with Judeo-Christianity. This is exactly what has been achieved by the Progressives; all in a deliberate act of vandalism in order to dictate as the collective Emperor.
The Progressives have replaced Judeo-Christianity with the moral code of Equality. Instead of one absolute judgement system, people are encouraged to create their own subjective morality; do whatever makes them feel good. This system is still underpinned by a kind of notion that all is well as long as others are not being harmed, but in this case it is a fallacy. Whatever anti-social and personally destructive thing that one can think of to do essentially becomes a right. The responsibility not to do it becomes redundant. The Progressive solution always involves more legislation – see ASBOs. The bottom line is one of a generation of individuals convinced of their own personal righteousness, and it is inevitable that somewhere along the way these are going to clash and cause damage, one to the other. Where there is not a shared notion of the common good, there is no social integrity, and in these circumstances, it is easier for a dictator to rule – divide and conquer is the principle at work in Equality; (as always seems to be the case with strands of Marxism, word-meanings are deliberately mangled).
The advantage of Judeo-Christianity is the built-in spiritual ramifications that negate the need for legislation. The transgressor can live unhindered all his life; the punishment is to be dealt out by the Final Arbiter. On the other hand, a transgressor of the moral code of Equality – i.e. one who voices disagreement or stands up to another’s “right” to do as he pleases – more often than not finds that he has become a criminal. With Judeo-Christianity the essence of existence is free will – you have a choice not to subscribe in your private life to the social conformity, and indeed, you are protected by the law. With the code of Progressivism, there is no choice; you face a sanction if you don’t promote and engage in Equality in all your dealings (as seen in the recent case of the couple not permitted to foster because of their personal anti-Equality beliefs). This is why Progressivism is Liberal-Fascism – it’s Liberal in the sense that it is defined in terms of a rejection of Judeo-Christianity constructs and imperatives. It is Fascism because you are made to conform through the law and therefore by force of the State.
Of course, that the Judeo-Christian moral code can bring about non-intrusive social cohesion seems to rely on the belief that there is a higher entity that will mete out ultimate punishment. However, theoretically no one needs to believe in God, they just need to believe in the rules derived from Judeo-Christianity as an absolute set of principles. This lesser act of faith is also enough to cause the enshrinement of a derived constitution given authority by the act of collective yielding to the parent principles. However, it is yet more powerful and helpful to the cause of Liberty to believe that a constitution is beyond the likes of mere man to meddle with (and enables us to identify our enemy). When God gives an Englishman his rights, then who but the Devil is going to try and take them away?