The Tree of Liberty

by Paul Johnston (1998)

Liberty means latitude of action within a framework of law. In order to have liberty, those who make and enforce law must be under it, so that law does not become a tool of interest. But, given the tendency of human beings to be energetic in the pursuit of interest, how are those who make and enforce the law themselves constrained? This is the question asked in The Tree of Liberty, and answered by means of new ideas about the sources of human action in human passion, about the concept of the state of nature, and about the nature of the relationship between ideas and political outcomes.

These new ideas are used to explain the emergence of a rule of law. Then they are used to answer a series of questions that turn out to be related to the process by which a rule of law emerged, such as: why did liberalism split between those who want and those who do not want the powers of government to be strictly limited; or, why has compassion become the dominant virtue of our times?

Johnston's penetrating analysis is compulsory reading for all lawyers, economists, political scientists and philosophers who are concerned about individual liberty and the preservation of the rule of law.

Reviews:

James Buchanan, Center for Study of Public Choice, George Mason University

... The monograph is, first of all, very well written. I hope that it secures a wide readership.

But, mainly, I want to react to your argument itself. The conjectural narrative is quite convincing and is, indeed, hard to challenge, historically or conceptually. And I like the "them" and "us" theme that supports the whole discussion. From this theme, you infer, logically, that a contractarian story stemming from rational choices made by separate or autonomous persons is not coherent. I partially agree, and I acknowledge that my own efforts embody a form of "whistling by the graveyard" sort of assumption to the effect that we do, in fact, possess, at base, the morality required. That is, in your terminology, we do believe; hence we can.

The discussion relating my efforts to Kant's autonomous moral will is really first rate, if deep, stuff, and it is something you should pull out, extend, and develop as a separate journal article. Hartmut Kliemt has often said that I am a Kantian.

Laissez Faire Books

Which epic conflict led to the rule of law in the Western world? What part does the rule of law play in the freedom philosophy? How did thinkers like John Locke and F.A. Hayek contribute to better understanding the rule of law? Johnston provides a thoughtful discussion of the philosophical and historical roots of the rule of law doctrine.

He talks about the insidious process by which government has undermined the rule of law. "Without ever presenting arms," he writes, "government encircles us and incorporates our substance into itself, while expertly staying below the threshold that would trigger in us ... rebellion. It takes upon itself the task of defining and defending our rights, and with the power gained thereby, absorbs more and more of the world into itself."

Johnston analyzes writings of Immanuel Kant, Ortega y Gasset, John Rawls and James M. Buchanan as well as Locke and Hayek. The book offers some fresh perspective on ideas which accounts for much of the good and evil around us.