Since, therefore, the liberty of the press is so essential to the support of our mixed government, this sufficiently decides the second question: Whether this liberty be advantageous or prejudicial, there being nothing of greater importance in every state than the preservation of the ancient government, especially if it be a free one. But I would fain go a step further and assert that such a liberty is attended with so few inconveniences that it may be claimed as the common right of mankind and ought to be indulged them almost in every government except the ecclesiastical, to which, indeed, it would be fatal. We need not dread from this liberty any such ill consequences as followed from the harangues of the popular demagogues of Athens and tribunes of Rome. A man reads a book or pamphlet alone and coolly. There is none present from whom he can catch the passion by contagion. He is not hurried away by the force and energy of action. And should he be wrought up to never so seditious a humour, there is no violent resolution presented to him by which he can immediately vent his passion. The liberty of the press, therefore, however abused, can scarce ever excite popular tumults or rebellion. And as to those murmurs or secret discontents it may occasion, it is better they should get vent in words, that they may come to the knowledge of the magistrate before it be too late, in order to his providing a remedy against them. Mankind, it is true, have always a greater propension to believe what is said to the disadvantage of their governors than the contrary; but this inclination is inseparable from them whether they have liberty or not. A whisper may fly as quick and be as pernicious as a pamphlet. Nay, it will be more pernicious where men are not accustomed to think freely or distinguish betwixt truth and falsehood….
Of the Liberty of the Press, 1742
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
The silencing of Andrew Bridgen MP
The stupidest “commercial” move in history
Anatomy of a Revolution – Arguably Legal to Publish in England
What is Happening in Britain?
The Conservatives and the ECHR: Posturing Hypocrisy from a Party of Traitors
Labour’s Grovelling to Donald Trump: A Sight of Parasites at Work
Powered by YARPP.
Liberty is what you should be left with after all the necessary laws are in place. Je suis Claire Khaw.
Dear Mr Hume .
How does one enforce freedom of the press without the constitutional limits on the power of the Crown that you imply elsewhere do not really matter?
Indeed how does one enforce any freedom if the government is unlimited in power and the constitution (“our mixed government”) has gone through the process of “euthanasia”? Did you really care which side won in 1745-6? Only a couple of years after you wrote this.
And what does any form of political freedom (freedom from government control) matter anyway, if philosophical freedom does not exist? If humans can not make real choices – can not do other than we do?
If freedom is just an illusion (and, by the way, who is having this illusion – if the reasoning “I” does not exist, a thought, according to you, NOT meaning a thinker) why is it of any moral importance?
How can something that does not exist, such as human moral agency (according to you – at least you seem to be implying this sometimes) be important? If what people write in newspapers is predetermined, if they have no real choice over what they write, why is freedom of the press important? After all, if one takes your position – freedom of the press does not really exist. Other than in a morally unimportant form – such as the “freedom” of water after a dam has been blown up.
And please Mr Hume do not try the “compatibilist” dodge – just come down on one side on the other. After all even your admirer Mr Kant pointed out that compatibilism is nonsense – in much the same way that “cold hot” or “dry wet” are. Either all our actions are predetermined or we make some real choices (we can do other than we do), the two positions are enemies – one can not be on both sides at once, any more than one can be on both sides at once in a military battle.
I am certainly not prejudging you Mr Hume – after all I use a lot question marks above, if I have misunderstood you please tell me.
Your polite language is sometimes a little unclear Mr Hume, at least Mr Martin Luther is clear about where he stands – he stands on the opposite side to me on all philosophical questions, and I believe the philosophical thought of Mr Luther to be both false and evil, but at least I am clear where he stands.
I just want to know what to know what side you are on Mr Hume.
I know what side Mr Hobbes is on – he is very clear that he is on the side of evil. To Mr Hobbes humans are just flesh robots and tyranny is correct.
I just want to know what side in battle, in the cosmic war, you are on Mr Hume.
Your Sincerely.
Chief Justice Sir John Holt.
Or any of the Old Whigs.
Meanwhile Mr Marks continues with his delusion that only supernatural faeries who work by impossible (and never described) means are people.
Sir John, writing from the next world, was perhaps unfair – after all he was using me as a typist.
However, for those who do not know, determinism, in the sense of all actions being predetermined, and the position that humans can not work out what moral good and evil are (independently of scripture) was, and is, the position of Sunni Islam.
It was the position of mainstream Islam – in the time of Mr Luther, Mr Hobbes, and Mr Hume.
It is difficult to see why we should fight Islam – if they are right and we are wrong.
A theocracy is my counter-intuitive solution to bring about a rationally small government.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/some-questions-for-libertarians-about.html