Welcome to another special ghost edition of Wednesday Headway. My ghost this week is the late economist Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992), best known for his improbable US best-seller 'The Road To Serfdom' (1944). This week's Wed-Head is the first to appear exclusively on SubStack, so my post today on NextDoor also marks the first free-standing edition of the admittedly woefully-irregular appearances of 'Plantation News'. For completeness I have appended that post below, after Hayek's guest/ghost article, which is the first part of the third and final 'panel' in my liberty triptych. Unlike the other two panels, the two parts of Hayek's panel are self-contained. The content of the second part, next week, will perhaps be a little more controversial than the first, which is Hayek's own introduction to his more systematic and comprehensive (ie than 'Serfdom') 1960 'restatement' of the case for Western-style liberal-democratic freedoms, 'The Constitution Of Liberty'. Furthermore, the conclusion (to anticipate) of this week's Plantation News presents, appropriately, John Stuart Mill's crucial pinpointing of the vital psychological significance of liberty - and hence of the importance of making-out that case. Here, then, is Hayek's preview of it (source: <https://silo.pub/the-constitution-of-liberty.html>, where the complete work can be read online):- *** INTRODUCTION *** If old truths are to retain their hold on men's minds, they must be restated in the language and concepts of successive generations. What at one time are their most effective expressions gradually become so worn with use that they cease to carry a definite meaning. The underlying ideas may be as valid as ever, but the words, even when they refer to problems that are still with us, no longer convey the same conviction; the arguments do not move in a context familiar to us; and they rarely give us direct answers to the questions we are asking. This may be inevitable because no statement of an ideal that is likely to sway men's minds can be complete: it must be adapted to a given climate of opinion, presuppose much that is accepted by all men of the time, and illustrate general principles in terms of issues with which they are concerned. It has been a long time since that ideal of freedom which inspired modern Western civilization and whose partial realization made possible the achievements of that civilization was effectively restated. In fact, for almost a century the basic principles on which this civilization was built have been falling into increasing disregard and oblivion. Men have sought for alternative social orders more often than they have tried to improve their understanding or use of the underlying principles of our civilization. It is only since we were confronted with an altogether different system that we have discovered that we have lost any clear conception of our aims and possess no firm principles which we can hold up against the dogmatic ideology of our antagonists. In the struggle for the moral support of the people of the world, the lack of firm beliefs puts the West at a great disadvantage. The mood of its intellectual leaders has long been characterized by disillusionment with its principles, disparagement of its achievements, and exclusive concern with the creation of "better worlds." This is not a mood in which we can hope to gain followers. If we are to succeed in the great struggle of ideas that is under way, we must first of all know what we believe. We must also become clear in our own minds as to what it is that we want to preserve if we are to prevent ourselves from drifting. No less is an explicit statement of our ideals necessary in our relations with other peoples. Foreign policy today is largely a question of which political philosophy is to triumph over another; and our very survival may depend on our ability to rally a sufficiently strong part of the world behind a common ideal. This we shall have to do under very unfavorable conditions. A large part of the people of the world borrowed from Western civilization and adopted Western ideals at a time when the West had become unsure of itself and had largely lost faith in the traditions that have made it what it is. This was a time when the intellectuals of the West had to a great extent abandoned the very belief in freedom which, by enabling the West to make full use of those forces that are responsible for the growth of all civilization, had made its unprecedented quick growth possible. In consequence, those men from the less advanced nations who became purveyors of ideas to their own people learned, during their Western training, not how the West had built up its civilization, but mostly those dreams of alternatives which its very success had engendered. This development is especially tragic because, though the beliefs on which these disciples of the West are acting may enable their countries to copy more quickly a few of the achievements of the West, they will also prevent them from making their own distinct contribution. Not all that is the result of the historical development of the West can or should be transplanted to other cultural foundations; and whatever kind of civilization will in the end emerge in those parts under Western influence may sooner take appropriate forms if allowed to grow rather than if it is imposed from above. If it is true, as is sometimes objected, that the necessary condition for a free evolution—the spirit of individual initiative—is lacking, then surely without that spirit no viable civilization can grow anywhere. So far as it is really lacking, the first task must be to waken it; and this a regime of freedom will do, but a system of regimentation will not. So far as the West is concerned, we must hope that here there still exists wide consent on certain fundamental values. But this agreement is no longer explicit; and if these values are to regain power, a comprehensive restatement and revindication are urgently needed. There seems to exist no work that gives a full account of the whole philosophy on which a consistent liberal view can rest—no work to which a person wishing to comprehend its ideals may turn. We have a number of admirable historical accounts of how "The Political Traditions of the West" grew. But though they may tell us that "the object of most Western thinkers has been to establish a society in which every individual, with a minimum dependence on discretionary authority of his rulers, would enjoy the privileges and responsibility of determining his own conduct within a previously defined framework of rights and -duties," I know of none that explains what this means when applied to the concrete problems of our time, or whereupon the ultimate justification of this idea rests. In recent years valiant efforts have also been made to clear away the confusions which have long prevailed regarding the principles of the economic policy of a free society. I do not wish to underrate the clarification that has been achieved. Yet, though I still regard myself as mainly an economist, I have come to feel more and more that the answers to many of the pressing social questions of our time are to be found ultimately in the recognition of principles that lie outside the scope of technical economics or of any other single discipline. Though it was from an original concern with problems of economic policy that I started, I have been slowly led to the ambitious and perhaps presumptuous task of approaching them through a comprehensive restatement of the basic principles of a philosophy of freedom. But I tender no apologies for thus venturing far beyond the range where I can claim to have mastered all the technical detail. If we are to regain a coherent conception of our aims, similar attempts should probably be made more often. One thing, in fact, which the work on this book has taught me is that our freedom is threatened in many fields because of the fact that we are much too ready to leave the decision to the expert or to accept too uncritically his opinion about a problem of which he knows intimately only one little aspect. But, since the matter of the ever-recurring conflict between the economist and the other specialists will repeatedly come up in this book, I want to make it quite clear here that the economist can not claim special knowledge which qualifies him to co-ordinate the efforts of all the other specialists. What he may claim is that his professional occupation with the prevailing conflicts of aims has made him more aware than others of the fact that no human mind can comprehend all the knowledge which guides the actions of society and of the consequent need for an impersonal mechanism, not dependent on individual human judgments, which will co-ordinate the individual efforts. It is his concern with the impersonal processes of society in which more knowledge is utilized than any one individual or organized group of human beings can possess that puts the economists in constant opposition to the ambitions of other specialists who demand powers of control because they feel that their particular knowledge is not given sufficient consideration. In one respect this book is, at the same time, more and less ambitious than the reader will expect. It is not chiefly concerned with the problems of any particular country or of a particular moment of time but, at least in its earlier parts, with principles which claim universal validity. The book owes its conception and plan to the recognition that the same intellectual trends, under different names or disguises, have undermined the belief in liberty throughout the world. If we want to counter these trends effectively, we must understand the common elements underlying all their manifestations. We must also remember that the tradition of liberty is not the exclusive creation of any single country and that no nation has sole possession of the secret even today. My main concern is not with the particular institutions or policies of the United States or of Great Britain but with the principles that these countries have developed on foundations provided by the ancient Greeks, the Italians of the early Renaissance, and the Dutch, and to which,the French and the Germans have made important contributions. Also, my aim will not be to provide a detailed program of policy but rather to state the criteria by which particular measures must be judged if they are to fit into a regime of freedom. It would be contrary to the whole spirit of this book if I were to consider myself competent to design a comprehensive program of policy. Such a program, after all, must grow out of the application of a common philosophy to the problems of the day. While it is not possible to describe an ideal adequately without constantly contrasting it with others, my aim is not mainly critical. My intention is to open doors for future development rather than to bar others, or, I should perhaps say, to prevent any such doors being barred, as invariably happens when the state takes sole control of certain developments. My emphasis is on the positive task of improving our institutions; and if I can do no more than indicate desirable directions of development, I have at any rate tried to be less concerned with the brushwood to be cleared away than with the roads which should be opened. As a statement of general principles, the book must deal mainly with basic issues of political philosophy, but it approaches more tangible problems as it proceeds. Of its three parts, the first endeavors to show why we want liberty and what it does. This involves some examination of the factors which determine the growth of all civilizations. The discussion in this part must be mainly theoretical and philosophical—if the latter is the right word to describe the field where political theory, ethics, and anthropology meet. It is followed by an examination of the institutions that Western man has developed to secure individual liberty. We enter here the field of jurisprudence and shall approach its problems historically. Yet it is neither from the point of view of the lawyer nor from that of the historian that we shall chiefly regard that evolution. Our concern will be with the growth of an ideal, only dimly seen and imperfectly realized at most times, which still needs further clarification if it is to serve as a guide for the solution of the problems of our times. In the third part of the book those principles will be tested by the application of them to some of today's critical economic and social issues. The topics I have selected are in those areas where a false choice among the possibilities before us is most likely to endanger freedom. Their discussion is meant to illustrate how often the pursuit of the same goals by different methods may either enhance or destroy liberty. They are mostly the kind of topics on which technical economics alone does not provide us with sufficient guidance to formulate a policy and which can be adequately treated only within a wider framework. But the complex issues which each of them raises can, of course, not be treated exhaustively in this volume. Their discussion serves mainly as an illustration of what is the chief aim of this book, namely, the interweaving of the philosophy, jurisprudence, and economics of freedom which is still needed. This book is meant to help understanding, not to fire enthusiasm. Though in writing about liberty the temptation to appeal to emotion is often irresistible, I have endeavored to conduct the discussion in as sober a spirit as possible. Though the sentiments which are expressed in such terms as the "dignity of man" and the "beauty of liberty" are noble and praiseworthy, they can have no place in an attempt at rational persuasion. I am aware of the danger of such a cold-blooded and purely intellectual approach to an ideal which has been a sacred emotion to many and which has been stoutly defended by many more to whom it never constituted an intellectual problem. I do not think the cause of liberty will prevail unless our emotions are aroused. But, though the strong instincts on which the struggle for liberty has always nourished itself are an indispensable support, they are neither a safe guide nor a certain protection against error. The same noble sentiments have been mobilized in the service of greatly perverted aims. Still more important, the arguments that have undermined liberty belong mainly to the intellectual sphere, and we must therefore counter them here. Some readers will perhaps be disturbed by the impression that I do not take the value of individual liberty as an indisputable ethical presupposition and that, in trying to demonstrate its value, I am possibly making the argument in its support a matter of expediency. This would be a misunderstanding. But it is true that if we want to convince those who do not already share our moral suppositions, we must not simply take them for granted. We must show that liberty is not merely one particular value but that it is the source and condition of most moral values. What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free. We can therefore not fully appreciate the value of freedom until we know how a society of free men as a whole differs from one in which unfreedom prevails. I must also warn the reader not to expect the discussion to remain always on the plane of high ideals or spiritual values. Liberty in practice depends on very prosaic matters, and those anxious to preserve it must prove their devotion by their attention to the mundane concerns of public life and by the efforts they are prepared to give to the understanding of issues that the idealist is often inclined to treat as common, if not sordid. The intellectual leaders in the movement for liberty have all too often confined their attention to those uses of liberty closest to their hearts, and have made little effort to comprehend the significance of those restrictions of liberty which did not directly affect them. If the main body of the discussion is to be as matter of fact and unemotional as possible throughout, its starting point will of necessity have to be even more pedestrian. The meaning of some of the indispensable words has become so vague that it is essential that we should at the outset agree on the sense in which we shall use them. The words "freedom" and "liberty" have been the worst sufferers. They have been abused and their meaning distorted until it could be said that "the word liberty means nothing until it is given specific content, and with a little massage it will take any content you like." We shall therefore have to begin by explaining what this liberty is that we are concerned with. The definition will not be precise until we have also examined such other almost equally vague terms as "coercion," "arbitrariness," and "law" which are indispensable in a discussion of liberty. The analysis of these concepts has, however, been postponed to the beginning of Part II, so that the arid effort at clarification of words should not present too great an obstacle before we reach the more substantial issues. For this attempt at restating a philosophy of men's living together which has slowly developed through more than two thousand years, I have drawn encouragement from the fact that it has often emerged from adversity with renewed strength. During the last few generations it has gone through one of its periods of decline. If to some, especially those in Europe, this book should appear to be a kind of inquest into the rationale of a system that no longer exists, the answer is that if our civilization is not to decline, that system must be revived. Its underlying philosophy became stationary when it was most influential, as it had often progressed when on the defensive. It has certainly made little progress during the last hundred years and is now on the defensive. Yet the very attacks on it have shown us where it is vulnerable in its traditional form. One need not be wiser than the great thinkers of the past to be in a better position to comprehend the essential conditions of individual liberty. The experience of the last hundred years has taught us much that a Madison or a Mill, a Tocqueville or a Humboldt, could not perceive. Whether the moment has arrived when this tradition can be revived will depend not only on our success in improving it but also on the temper of our generation. It was rejected at a time when men would recognize no limits to their ambition, because it is a modest and even humble creed, based on a low opinion of men's wisdom and capacities and aware that, within the range for which we can plan, even the best society will not satisfy all our desires. It is as remote from perfectionism as it is from the hurry and impatience of the passionate reformer, whose indignation about particular evils so often blinds him to the harm and injustice that the realization of his plans is likely to produce. Ambition, impatience, and hurry are often admirable in individuals; but they are pernicious if they guide the power of coercion and if improvement depends on those who, when authority is conferred on them, assume that in their authority lies superior wisdom and thus the right to impose their beliefs on others. I hope our generation may have learned that it has been perfectionism of one kind or another that has often destroyed whatever degree of decency societies have achieved. With more limited objectives, more patience, and more humility, we may in fact advance further and faster than we have done while under the guidance of "a proud and most presumptuous confidence in the transcendent wisdom of this age, and its discernment.**" [[ **Hayek is quoting from William Wordsworth's 'The Excursion' (see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Excursion>); the complete poem is online, too, at <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Excursion>. ]] *** PLANTATION NEWS *** Well, folks: I rather hoped to have rather more Plantation News than I actually do, but after a highly unsatisfactory - nigh-on abortive, really - informal meeting with Highlife Highland staff last Thursday lunchtime that culminated in their outright refusal to engage on a more formal basis without my going up the chain of command to the level of non-local management, what little else I could report back to you about that day is basically negative. In lieu of griping, therefore, I may as well recapitulate the state-of-play as things stand. The following first three paragraphs are intended to be a tolerably concise summary of who and what is involved. The next two paragraphs complete the background, and the rest of what I have to say here mostly tries to point a/the way forward based on how I see things at present. OK, the easy bit: here are the two physical assets 'in play':- * Plantation Hall in Young Place * The playpark at Pine Grove Next, here are the three relevant Plantation-area (estate & environs) community bodies:- * The dormant Plantation Community Association (PCA), which is statutorily a Registered Tenant's Organisation (RTO); this status provides a limited funding stream to cover administrative expenses. Arguably less happily, the PCA is legally linked to the playpark at Pine Grove, a point I shall return to below. * The Plantation and Alma Road areas Campaign Association (PARCA), which is statutorily a Community Participation Body (CPB) under Part 3 of 2015's Community Empowerment Act (see all four of July's Wed-Heads, especially that of the 28th). PARCA is unfunded; administrative expenses are covered by its general secretary, C-Cllr Mark Drayton (lucky me). * The Plantation Community Group (PCG), which is an unfunded Facebook Group run by Alan Petrie and Morag Macpherson. Alan is also on NextDoor (<https://nextdoor.co.uk>), although Morag isn't. The group has several dozen members and provides a discussion space for residents. Last, here are the three relevant Highland Regional Council (HRC) bodies:- * HRC's Inverness-based Tenant Participation Officers (TPOs), who are led by Mandy McLeman but are most frequently represented locally by the Caol-residing Karin McKay. * VAL (Voluntary Action Lochaber) which, along with the TPOs, oversaw the legal agreement binding the PCA to the playpark at Pine Grove. Then as now it was/is led by my fellow community councillor Flora McKee. * Highlife Highland (HLH) who, for all intents and purposes, own and operate Plantation Hall. Management has just migrated from Youth to Adult Learning services, but both are Caol-based, unfortunately. Note, please, that there is no legal or organisational relationship linking the Hall to the PCA, still less to the playpark. The significance of that final point is that the legal travails of the abeyant PCA cannot be used as a pretext to inhibit community-control of Plantation Hall. Indeed, the HLH managers neither know nor care about the old PCA - it's simply irrelevant to the Forbes-Richardson agreement on Hall access that I brokered early last year ('Forbes' is Kate Forbes MSP; 'Richardson' is HLH Principal Adult and Youth Manager Mark Richardson - see 12th May's Wed-Head). So, for the best part of three years I have been trying to:- * (A) Introduce community-lead into the management of Plantation Hall. * (B1) Entirely separately, shine a light into the darkness surrounding the legal wrangles linking the playpark and the PCA. * (B2) Warn possible recruits to a re-launched continuity-PCA that there are unresolved legalities that could make new members legally liable for old mistakes. Loyal readers will be well aware that in recent months I have found myself arguing that the only really satisfactory way of achieving B1 is to wind-up the old PCA and start afresh with a brand new RTO based on a larger catchment area. (Alan Petrie's PCG Facebook group, for example, could be firmed-up with a constitution and swiftly recognised as the rightful RTO by virtue of its healthy and active membership.) About this seemingly sensible way forward THE MORE RESISTANCE I HAVE ENCOUNTERED FROM THE TPOs AND VAL, THE MORE SUSPICIOUS I HAVE BECOME. Hence, absent legal clarity from (say) VAL, who seem to be 'leading' on B1, I am increasingly convinced that B2 is a serious problem, and that my warnings are legitimate. Needless to say, I shall be somewhat embarrassed if it turns out that I have been playing the role of 'Chicken Little' about this, although if my anxieties have induced VAL to resolve whatever legalities existed three years ago (which, of course, I will never know), then I suppose it will all have been worth it. However, recent (=last month) circumstantial evidence suggests otherwise, viz this post on some absurdly popular social-networking platform or other:- "Hi, I Was on a meeting today to discuss the plantation community association reforming under new members,as there are a few residents keen to take this forward, once the draft paperwork has been completed by VAL (21days notice for any changes needs to be given ) then the draft will be made public for consultation, main change is to open up catchment area to cover Alma Road Victoria RoAd Mamore cres etc there will be a meeting arranged with public to form a new committee with directors etc , we will give plenty notice of meeting date when arranged. The rate your estate action plan has been devised from our walk about on the 12th and will be available to the group or any interested residents, it will be an ongoing action plan. The survey report can also be viewed just give me a message if you want any info or message our tenant participation lochaber page" Not being a Facebooker (see last fortnight's Wed-Head), I am unable to authenticate this post which apparently purports, as I understand it, to have flowed from the pen of one Karin McGillivray McKay, presumably the very same aforementioned TPO. It would be useful to be absolutely sure of this, because then I'd feel slightly less impertinent asking of her why on earth a run-of-the-mill Registered Tenant's Organisation suddenly needs "directors etc" rather than just the usual office-bearers (Chair, Secretary, Treasurer) boasted by Claggan's RTO and Mark Linfield's UARG (another RTO), not to mention FITCC. Pending satisfactory answers to all these questions and concerns, I shall continue to pursue B2 whenever it seems appropriate to do so. Like here and now, for example: so far the marketing strategy adopted by the Inverness-based TPOs appears to have been to dangle baubles and bright shiny objects like the current PCA credit bank balance ("unspent funds," woo!) and the promise of ongoing administrative funding (to which a fresh-start RTO would be equally entitled anyway) as an inducement (ie bribe) to take on the legal liabilities associated with the playpark at Pine Grove. This doesn't even begin to sound like an even halfway-decent bargain to me. Enough said - except to add that I myself have, of course, nothing at stake and nothing to gain: PARCA is constitutionally barred** from becoming an RTO so Alan Petrie's PCG represents the only plausible immediate alternative as things stand. [[ **that's because taking funds from HRC, HLH, HIE or any like body would create immediate conflicts of interest with PARCA's campaigning role. PARCA is first and foremost a campaign association for the Plantation locality. To that end it is constitutionally obliged to satisfy the requirements of a community participation body under the terms of the Community Empowerment Act 2015 but it is certainly not obliged - and is in fact (as stated above) constitutionally ineligible - to become an RTO. I, for one, have not the least desire to sup at the feet of the devil. ]] In the meantime, turning to Plantation Hall the situation is equally unresolved. I started today's 'Plantation News' with the bad news from last week, but there's good news from last month too, which means that happily I can finish on something of an up-note by appending Mark Richardson's mid-August progress report in postscript below. I will be writing to Mr Richardson shortly, but not so shortly as for all of you reading this not to have time to make your feelings known to me - please do! Indeed, by way of (I hope) encouragement, before I sign off for today allow me take a brief moment to explain why I'm so passionate about community-lead, both for Plantation Hall and in general:- In last fortnight's Wed-Head I rather pompously undertook, in this week's Wed-Head (now exclusive to SubStack - if you're reading this on NextDoor it's already available at <https://DraytonMark.SubStack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt1>), to return to the subject of "the liberal-democratic civilisation within which we live and from which we all benefit." Loyal readers will recall that my current 'liberty triptych', which will conclude next week with Wed-Head xxvi pt.2, began a month ago with Gertrude Himmelfarb's fine introductory essay to John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'. For those who haven't read the book itself - spoiler alert! - I'm going to reveal the ending because Mill makes exactly the point I want to convey:- "A government cannot have too much of the kind of activity which does not impede, but aids and stimulates, individual exertion and development. The mischief begins when, instead of calling forth the activity and powers of individuals and bodies, it substitutes its own activity for theirs; when, instead of informing, advising, and, upon occasion, denouncing, it makes them work in fetters, or bids them stand aside and does their work instead of them. The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish." Community empowerment isn't optional. It isn't some abstract, dispensable luxury. It is a necessity. It matters because, without it, human beings cannot help but be rendered docile, dwarfed, and diminished under the awesome mechanistic (read: bureaucratic) weight of our civilisation. And don't get me wrong - our civilisation is great. We all benefit from its greatness. It is our duty to sustain that greatness by attending to our own "mental expansion and elevation" - in other words, our empowerment. That is what is at stake. That's what's really 'in play' in Young Place. PS: > Dear Mr Drayton, > > I am pleased to be able to let you know that we have set a date for the end > of August for our systems and processes to be in place for improved > community access to Plantation Hall and I want to update you with progress > as to where we are. > > High Life Highland Youth Service has had responsibility for the Hall and > this responsibility is currently being transferred across to the Adult > learning team which know Jane Ivetic from as your local Coordinator. As > principal manager of both teams I retain the same role and am happy to > remain your key contact at that level if required. > > We are currently finalising an agreement with our library service colleagues > in Fort William that will: > > * Create and establish an induction process for community members/groups > to access the key from the library > * Ensure that relevant library staff are updated regarding a shared > booking process for the community and High Life Highland > > Once a person has been inducted to the Hall process they will then be able > to get access to the key being held at the library. We wanted to make sure > the booking process was as inclusive and flexible as possible, so there will > be an option to make bookings by email, telephone or in person at either > Caol Youth Centre or Fort William Library. > There are works currently planned for the hall, as yet we haven't had > confirmation from a tradesperson when these works will be carried out, so > there might be a slight delay to the practical application of the new > process. However, please be assured it is all heading in the right > direction. > > Once the process is finalised we will confirm it in document form with you. > We are also happy to keep you updated about the progress of works at the > hall if you wish. > > Kind Regards > > Mark Richardson > > > Mark Richardson - Principal Adult and Youth Manager > High Life Highland | Old Library | Tulloch Street | Dingwall | IV15 9JZ
No posts