Liberty Squandered: The English Tradition from Magna Carta to Empire

The identity of a people often shapes the nature and trajectory of their government. In England, a deep-rooted belief in individual liberty has profoundly influenced the nation’s legal and cultural institutions, shaping English society from the early Middle Ages through the Industrial Revolution. This identity—forged through centuries of struggle and self-definition—established a legacy of individual rights, due process, and a balanced approach to law and order. The Magna Carta of 1215, for instance, set a groundbreaking precedent by binding even the king to the rule of law and affirming that Englishmen were “free-born.” This commitment was further solidified by the development of English common law, which emphasized justice and protection for all citizens, regardless of rank, including the monarch.

In 1707, however, a significant shift occurred with the Act of Union, which joined England and Scotland under a single British identity. This transformation required England’s traditions of liberty and local governance to adapt to a centralized imperial authority, reconfiguring individual freedoms within a larger imperial framework. Although these ideals persisted, they began to reflect the needs of an expanding empire, aligning liberty with broader, centralized control.

The legacy of English liberty stands at a precarious threshold. The recent UK government advisory, “Think before you post,” cloaked in public welfare, quietly undermines the freedoms that once defined English identity. Once a steadfast guardian of individual rights, the government now leans toward surveillance and constraint, drifting alarmingly from its founding principles of liberty and due process. This subtle shift suggests a future where the very freedoms that shaped English society are at risk of being quietly surrendered.

Evolving Traditions of English Liberty

The Magna Carta was originally a series of rebellious victories that compelled the English monarchy to state rights formally that had previously been assumed. First issued in 1215 by King John under pressure from rebellious barons, the document marked a significant shift by formally acknowledging several protections like the right to fair trial and justice. Although annulled shortly after by Pope Innocent III, it was reissued in 1216, 1217, and 1225 under King Henry III, each version reinforcing the principle that the monarchy was bound by law and individual rights were inviolable. Over time, the Magna Carta became a lasting symbol of accountable governance and the protection of fundamental rights, invoked repeatedly by the English against tyranny.

The Levellers adopted and expanded upon the ideas of natural law in England during the Wars of Three Kingdoms (1639 -1653), Lilburne particularly argued that government must be based on a contract with the people, one that exists to protect the “freeborn rights” of every individual. John Lilburne, a prominent Leveller, asserted that “every man by nature was born with as much freedom as any other man.” Furthermore, Richard Overton, another key Leveller, linked the concept of freeborn rights to the ancient liberties of England, arguing that these liberties were the birthright of every Englishman and were to be upheld by the rational law of nature. He argued that every person should be judged by the law of nature or rule of reason. He advocated for the inherent rights of self-ownership and freedom from aggression, which he believed belonged to all individuals by their humanity.

The Levellers’ manifesto, An Agreement of the People, advocated for constitutional reforms to establish a government that truly represented and protected citizens’ rights, including freedom of religion, the press, and conscience. It called for equality before the law, the rule of law, protection of private property, and a democratically-elected parliament. It inspired the Radical Whigs and, subsequently, the Liberal Party. In the 19th century, the Whigs and the Liberal Party championed these principles, promoting greater suffrage, the removal of trade barriers, and the elimination of price and wage controls to foster economic freedom and market competition.

The Levellers’ vision resonated with common law’s principles of due process, reason, and communal judgment. Due process mandated transparency and adherence to procedures, safeguarding against arbitrary rule. Trial by jury empowered peers to judge, highlighting fairness and public accountability. Guided by precedent, common law ensured consistency and restrained the whims of those in power, emphasizing rational adjudication and judicial independence to ground justice in enduring principles over fleeting policies.

In the early 17th century, Sir Edward Coke’s interpretation of common law reshaped English legal principles by establishing a framework of liberty that bound even the monarch. His ruling in Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) argued that “the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them utterly void” if they contravene basic principles of “common right and reason.” This marked a foundational assertion that courts could nullify laws infringing on individual rights, prefiguring the principle of judicial review that would later become central to constitutional law.

Coke’s landmark work, The Institutes of the Lawes of England, expanded on this philosophy, asserting that “the king himself ought not to be under man, but under God and the law.” This statement directly opposed the doctrine of the divine right of kings, asserting that the monarch was also bound by common law, a revolutionary stance in his era. Coke’s interpretation insisted that law was supreme over all authority, positioning the judiciary as a crucial check on both royal and parliamentary overreach.

Through his legal writings and judgments, Coke codified the view of common law as a protector of inherent rights and a constraint on sovereign power. His ideas set the stage for modern constitutionalism particularly in the United States and the rest of the world, cementing judicial oversight as a safeguard against the erosion of civil liberties by any governing power.

From English Liberty to Imperial Subject: The Quiet Conquest of England

In his 1899 critique, The Conquest of the United States by Spain, William Graham Sumner warned with biting clarity that while the United States had vanquished Spain militarily, it stood on the precipice of an internal defeat by adopting Spain’s authoritarian practices. Sumner’s words cut to imperialism’s core: in subjugating others, a nation risks eroding its own fundamental values, reshaped by the oppressive systems it enforces abroad. His warning is a clear caution against the lure of empire, where the conqueror risks self-loss in conquest.

As England’s empire expanded in the 17th and 18th centuries, local English identity gave way to an imperial British identity, dismantling centuries-old liberties. Acts like the Navigation Acts (1651), Stamp Act (1765), and Declaratory Act (1766) ravaged colonial rights, restricting trade, undermining due process, and asserting Britain’s absolute control. The 1707 Act of Union suppressed Scottish autonomy, centralizing power for imperial cohesion. This legal onslaught sacrificed the “free-born Englishman” ideal, replacing local justice with exploitation and deepening colonial resentment.

The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767 imposed taxes without colonial representation, violating the English constitutional principle that taxation required consent—rooted in the Magna Carta and reaffirmed by the 1689 Bill of Rights. These measures sowed resentment that ultimately led to the loss of the American colonies, as they fought to affirm their natural rights. The establishment of Vice-Admiralty Courts in the colonies marked a stark departure from English legal traditions. These courts, operating without juries and presided over by Crown-appointed judges, denied colonists the right to a fair trial—a bedrock of English justice. The Sugar Act of 1764 further empowered these courts to try smuggling cases that, in England, would have been heard in common law courts with juries. This denial of basic legal protections signaled Britain’s disregard for its own principles in favor of enforcing imperial dominance.

The British Empire’s expansion necessitated an increasingly centralized government that directly interfered with local governance, diminishing the English tradition of decentralized authority. The Declaratory Act of 1766, for instance, unequivocally imposed Parliament’s supremacy, stripping colonial assemblies of any legislative power by allowing British lawmakers to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” This act nullified the longstanding colonial self-governance system, effectively rendering local legislative bodies powerless and consolidating control in London.

Moreover, the arbitrary expansion of executive power in both Britain and its colonies severely eroded the rule of law, enabling unchecked governmental authority. The Suspension of Habeas Corpus Act of 1794, enacted in response to perceived revolutionary threats, allowed indefinite detention without trial, a direct violation of the 1679 Habeas Corpus Act that had protected citizens from arbitrary imprisonment. This suspension prioritized state security over individual rights, marking a stark departure from English legal principles. In American colonies, governors wielded vast authority under the King’s commission, bypassing colonial assemblies and enacting laws or raising taxes without local consent, fueling resentment and ultimately rebellion. Such unilateral executive actions highlighted the extent to which the British Empire prioritized imperial control over the adherence to fair governance and legal integrity.

In conclusion, while much of the foundational principles of English liberty has been eroded through imperial expansion and centralized authority, there is hope for a revival—a new renaissance of the ideals that once defined the nation. By reawakening the commitment to individual rights, due process, and accountable governance, society can reclaim its identity rooted in freedom and justice.

Originally Posted at https://mises.org/

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
December 7, 2024
2 views

From Marcus Aurelius To Omar Little: A Man’s Code Is Vital

Authored by Josh Stylman via The Brownstone Institute,

With Thanksgiving weekend still fresh in our memory, my gratitude centers not on the usual holiday platitudes, but on something that has become increasingly precious in our artificial age: authentic relationships – both family and lifelong friends – that deepen rather than fracture under pressure. What binds these relationships, I’ve come to realize, isn’t shared opinions or circumstances, but a shared code – an unwavering commitment to principles that transcends the shifting sands of politics and social pressure. I’m particularly grateful for my inner circle – friends I’ve known since elementary school and family members whose bonds have only strengthened through the crucible of recent years.

Like many others who spoke out against Covid tyranny, I watched what I thought were solid relationships dissolve in real time. As the owner of a local brewery and coach of my kids’ sports teams, I had been deeply embedded in my community – a “man about town” whose friendship and counsel others actively sought. Yet suddenly, the same people who had eagerly engaged with me would scurry when they saw me coming down the street. Professional networks and neighborhood connections evaporated at the mere questioning of prevailing narratives. They reacted this way because I broke orthodoxy, choosing to stand for liberal values – the very principles they claimed to champion – by rejecting arbitrary mandates and restrictions.

In this moment of testing, the difference between those who lived by a consistent code and those who simply followed social currents became starkly clear. Yet in retrospect, this winnowing feels more like clarification than loss. As surface-level relationships fell away, my core relationships – decades-long friendships and family bonds – not only endured but deepened. These trials revealed which bonds were authentic and which were merely situational.

The friendships that remained, anchored in genuine principles rather than social convenience, proved themselves infinitely more valuable than the broader network of fair-weather friends I lost.

What strikes me most about these enduring friendships is how they’ve defied the typical narrative of relationships destroyed by political divisions. As Marcus Aurelius observed, “The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” Despite taking opposite sides of the dialectic on political and cultural issues over the decades, we found ourselves united in opposition to the constitutional transgressions and rising tyranny of the past few years – the lockdowns, mandates, and systematic erosion of basic rights. This unity emerged not from political alignment but from a shared code: a commitment to first principles that transcends partisan divisions.

In these contemplative moments, I’ve found myself returning to Aurelius’s Meditations – a book I hadn’t opened since college until Joe Rogan and Marc Andreessen’s excellent conversation inspired me to revisit it. Aurelius understood that a personal code – a set of unwavering principles – was essential for navigating a world of chaos and uncertainty. The connection feels particularly apt – like my own friend group, Rogan’s platform exemplifies a code of authentic discourse in our age.

Critics, particularly on the political left, often talk about needing their “own Joe Rogan,” missing entirely what makes his show work: its genuine authenticity. Despite being historically left-leaning himself, Rogan’s willingness to engage in real-time thinking with guests across the ideological spectrum and across a broad variety of topics, his commitment to open inquiry and truth-seeking, has paradoxically led to his estrangement from traditional liberal circles – much like many of us who’ve found ourselves branded as apostates for maintaining consistent principles.

This commitment to a code of authentic discourse explains why organizations like Brownstone Institute – despite being routinely smeared as “far right” – have become a crucial platform for independent scholars, policy experts, and truth-seekers. I witnessed this firsthand at a recent Brownstone event, where, unlike most institutions that enforce ideological conformity, diverse thinkers engaged in genuine exploration of ideas without fear of orthodoxy enforcement. When attendees were asked if they considered themselves political liberals ten years ago, nearly 80% raised their hands.

These are individuals who, like my friends and me, still embrace core liberal values – free speech, open inquiry, rational debate – yet find themselves branded as right-wing or conspiracy theorists merely for questioning prevailing narratives.

What unites this diverse community is their shared recognition that the reality being presented to us is largely manufactured, as explored in “The Information Factory,” and their commitment to maintaining authentic discourse in an age of enforced consensus.

In The Wire, Omar Little, a complex character who lived by his own moral code while operating outside conventional society, famously declared, “A man got to have a code.” Though a stick-up man targeting drug dealers, Omar’s rigid adherence to his principles – never harming civilians, never lying, never breaking his word – made him more honorable than many supposedly “legitimate” characters. His unwavering dedication to these principles – even as a gangster operating outside society’s laws – resonates deeply with my experience.

Like Rogan’s commitment to open dialogue, like Brownstone’s dedication to free inquiry, like RFK Jr.’s determination to expose how pharmaceutical and agricultural interests have corrupted our public institutions: these exemplars of authentic truth-seeking mirror what I’ve found in my own circle. My friends and I may have different political views, but we share a code: a commitment to truth over comfort, to principle over party, to authentic discourse over social approval. This shared foundation has proven more valuable than any superficial agreement could be.

In these times of manufactured consensus and social control, the importance of this authentic foundation becomes even clearer. The 2012 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which made it legal to propagandize American citizens, merely formalized what many had long suspected. It represented the ultimate betrayal of the government’s code with its citizens – the explicit permission to manipulate rather than inform. As anyone not under the spell has come to realize – we’ve all been thoroughly “Smith-Mundt’ed.” This legal framework helps explain much of what we’ve witnessed in recent years, particularly during the pandemic – when those who proclaimed themselves champions of social justice supported policies that created new forms of segregation and devastated the very communities they claimed to protect.

This disconnect becomes even more apparent in the realm of charitable giving and social causes, where “virtue laundering” has become endemic. The absence of a genuine moral code is nowhere more evident than in our largest charitable institutions. While many charitable organizations do crucial work at the local level, there’s an unmistakable trend among large NGOs toward what a friend aptly calls the “philanthropath class.”

Consider the Clinton Foundation’s activities in Haiti, where millions in earthquake relief funds resulted in industrial parks that displaced farmers and housing projects that never materialized. Or examine the BLM Global Network Foundation, which purchased luxury properties while local chapters reported receiving minimal support. Even major environmental NGOs often partner with the world’s biggest polluters, creating an illusion of progress while fundamental problems persist.

This pattern reveals a deeper truth about the professional charitable class – many of these institutions have become purely extractive, profiting from and even amplifying the very issues they purport to solve. At the top, a professional philanthropic class collects fancy titles in their bios and flashes photos from charity galas while avoiding any genuine engagement with the problems they claim to address. Social media has democratized this performance, allowing everyone to participate in virtue theater – from black squares and Ukrainian flag avatars to awareness ribbons and cause-supporting emojis – creating an illusion of activism without the substance of real action or understanding. It’s a system entirely devoid of the moral code that once guided charitable work – the direct connection between benefactor and beneficiary, the genuine commitment to positive change rather than personal aggrandizement.

The power of a genuine code becomes most evident in contrast with these hollow institutions. While organizations and social networks fracture under pressure, I’m fortunate that my closest friendships and family bonds have only grown stronger. We’ve had fierce debates over the years, but our shared commitment to fundamental principles – to having a code – has allowed us to navigate even the most turbulent waters together. When the pandemic response threatened basic constitutional rights, when social pressure demanded conformity over conscience, these relationships proved their worth not despite our differences, but because of them.

As we navigate these complex times, the path forward emerges with striking clarity. From Marcus Aurelius to Omar Little, the lesson remains the same: a man gotta have a code. The crisis of authenticity in our discourse, the chasm between proclaimed and lived values, and the failure of global virtue-signaling all point to the same solution: a return to genuine relationships and local engagement. Our strongest bonds – those real relationships that have weathered recent storms – remind us that true virtue manifests in daily choices and personal costs, not in digital badges or distant donations.

This Thanksgiving, I found myself grateful not for the easy comforts of conformity but for those in my life who demonstrate real virtue – the kind that comes with personal cost and requires genuine conviction. The answer lies not in grand gestures or viral posts, but in the quiet dignity of living according to our principles, engaging with our immediate communities, and maintaining the courage to think independently. As both the emperor-philosopher and the fictional street warrior understood, what matters isn’t the grandeur of our station but the integrity of our code.

Returning one final time to Meditations, I’m reminded of Aurelius’s timeless challenge: “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/07/2024 – 23:20