The Low Road To Tyranny

I read Brian Micklethwait today, as I usually do and I wanted to comment on an error in the narrative. Micklethwait's a libertarian, and, along with conservative Protestants, we have a general tendency to think that all the rebellions against the Pope were good, wonderful, and led to greater freedom for the people.

And yet, concurrent with this so-called freedom we see the rise of the state, far beyond the wildest dreams of medieval kings.

Similarly, the development of Parliament is praised for finally the taxpayer class had a chance to determine just how much money the king would take from them. This is the sort of thing we teach children, but it's laughable because a national budget now compared to then- well it's a bit like comparing a solar system to a grain of sand.

I think these are part of a much larger narrative used by socialists to justify their meddling. The narrative is one of conflict, whether by race, religion, class, gender, or whatever other classifaction they drum up. Historians like to spend most of their time on wars, anyway, so I suppose it's not too uncomfortable to reclassify even peaceful co-existence as a struggle.

And, of course, the socialists are there to save us by using the government to secure our freedom from the mean old oppressor. The new 'freedom' seems strangely more restricting than our old 'slavery.' Perhaps the revolutionaries made a mistake, and traded in the light yoke for a heavier one.