Most governments, whether they know the writer or not, tend to follow the assumption of the late Mr. Jeremy Bentham. They regard humans as soulless machines, not beings with free will and moral agency, and they regard the idea of rights against the State as ‘nonsense’ and natural justice itself, which is to say limiting state power, as ‘nonsense on stilts’.
To most governments and the witchdoctors in universities and media – and the establishment generally, rights are goods and services from government – not limits on the size and scope of government. They may or may not believe that there should be 13 Departments of State seeking to produce “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” like Bentham – they may believe they should be 11 Departments of State controlling society or 14 or some other number, but they agree that there should be a permanent bureaucracy which is neither elected or appointed by people who are elected (thus making elections to some extent a sham) dedicated to the Progressive agenda of spending ever more money and imposing ever more regulations. To most modern governments, and the evil establishments they represent, such works as “The New Atlantis” by the collectivist supporter of despotism Sir Francis Bacon (the mentor of Thomas Hobbes) are not horror stories – they are an inspiration, as they were for Jeremy Bentham. For more modern examples, see Richard Ely (the inspiration of both “Teddy” Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) and “Philip Dru: Administrator” by President Wilson’s “other self” Colonel House.
So far a depressing picture – but I do not think that most people in most countries fully share this Benthamite view of things. I think that most people are closer to the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. The philosopher Epicurus did not deny the Gods (he was not a materialist as Hobbes and Bentham were), but he did not stress them either – his concern was with this life. Nor did Epicurus deny moral agency: the ability to meaningfully choose – free will. On the contrary, his philosophy was based upon the principle of free will – he hoped to convince people to choose to change their lives. And how to change their lives? Not by politics – but by their own efforts and by cooperating with their friends. Not in wild orgies (the short term pleasure undermining longer term happiness)… but in the simple joys of life and friendship. About a million miles for someone like me – I am really a Stoic in my political attitudes, always looking for a noble cause to die horribly for (telling me to forget politics and “enjoy your life” is like telling acid to be alkaline), but also a million miles from a follower of Jeremy Bentham with their obsession with planning society – treating people as non-sentient (non-beings).
Take the example of a young lady I overheard whilst on a recent overseas trip. The young lady asked a friend to help her decide which bangle on a table was the most pretty – this was a very serious matter for her, indeed her face was a picture of serious consideration into what was, for her, a very serious matter. This young lady was not unintelligent (I heard her speak at least two languages with total confidence) – it was just that her concerns were not political. Her mind was not bent on the planning of society (or preventing it being planned – in a desperate stand against the forces of evil) – and making (by force and fear) everyone do what she wanted them to do. The young person’s concern was with her own happiness and the happiness of the people around her – happiness to be promoted voluntarily, not by force.
I think most people are like this – large numbers of evil people exist, but most are not. Most people are, whether they know the man’s name or not, followers of Epicurus. I am not – most people are utterly alien to me (people like Cato the Younger are my sort of people). But most people are NOT followers of Jeremy Bentham with his desire to plan society, which means that (deep down) most people are not on the same side as most modern governments and the entrenched establishments they represent.
Television and posters (and so on) is all a good example of this. It is not all socialist, ever bigger government, propaganda. Most television, posters, magazines etc. are really focused on ‘life style’, fashions, holidays, house design, clothing, food, drink…
I think the late Cambridge historian Maurice Cowling was right about the majority of the Westminster Review crowd not really being about the “liberty” they constantly spoke and wrote about – but really being about replacing the power of the landowners and clergy with themselves, as public (state) officials (the rule of the “educated” – rather the rule of landowners who were also unpaid Justices of the Peace, and the military leaders in times of war or civil strife), although he may have been too hard on Mr John Stuart Mill.
After all these people, the Westminster Review types, did not really even stand for private control of land – their “free trade in land” position was really a deception hiding a government-control-of-land agenda (just as Jeremy Bentham’s “Not Paul but Jesus” work was a deception – as Mr Bentham did not really believe in Jesus or any divine being) , and they wanted government departments set up to cover the things traditionally covered by church and voluntary groups. But most of modern culture is not really political.
Most of modern culture is not a political conspiracy by ‘liberals’ – it is more “girls [and boys] just want to have fun”, people are not (in the main) interested in politics, but are more interested in wanting to have fun and be happy. Not in wild orgies – but in the gentle pleasures of ordinary life, including romantic affairs and relationships: whether they know it or not, most people are followers of Epicurus rather than Jeremy Bentham.
They can not really defend themselves, although calling them sheep would be a bit too harsh – they are free will rational beings, but they deserve to be defended. They deserve Ambrosius Aurelianus (and Artorius – if Artorius really existed) and his knights (and they were knights – late Roman heavy cavalry were fully armoured, and in Britannia there was also the Celtic tradition of horsemanship) to at least try and save them.
And if it ends the way it ended for Cato the Younger then so be it – for as the old French series “The Flashing Blade” put it – “It is better to have fought and lost – than not to have fought at all”. All human beings die – it is what we do while we are alive that counts.