!!!*** LIBERTY AND GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION***!!!
Liberty and Government Intervention
The Principle of Liberty is an ideal. It is an expression of human social conscience, of our fundamental sense of right and wrong in our dealings with others. It reflects the ancient concepts of Natural Law and English Common Law. But the Principle of Liberty can also be defined with considerable accuracy in terms of the degree Government Intervention.
Throughout most of our political history Government has pursued a policy of laisser-faire or minimal intervention in the affairs of society, thus permitting those with superior forces of personality, intelligence and wealth to increase their wellbeing by diminishing that of others.
Insufficient Government intervention permits citizens to harm and exploit one another. That is the essence of Right WingConservatism. Under this regime freedom is increased for some but decreased for others; hence the overall liberty is not maximized.
The Socialist reaction gave Government, or the State, considerably greater powers of intervention designed to help the poor by preventing exploitation and readjusting the balance of wealth.
But excessive Government intervention initiates exploitation and oppression by the State. That is the essence of Left Wing Socialism. Under this regime Liberty is increased by Government protection, but it is then decreased as Government goes further and creates oppression. Again, Liberty is not maximized.
Liberty is maximized when Government offers full protection, but without moving into oppression.
It thus becomes clear that the significant factor in Government policy, and the Liberty it produces, is the Degree of Government Intervention.
The Degree of Government Intervention can be shown as a simple straight-line scale, calibrated from Zero to One Hundred Percent.
At one end of the Scale we have Zero Percent Government Intervention, which means that Government quite simply does nothing at all. Government is to all intents and purposes nonexistent.
The result is anarchy in its pure sense of being without leader. In this condition everyone is free to do whatever they like; but this also includes the freedom to limit or eliminate the freedom of others. Freedom can be absolute, or it can be nothing, depending on your strength, skill, cunning, or luck! Liberty, in the sense of a disciplined freedom resulting in a safe and ordered society, could not be said to exist under this regime.
At the other end of the Scale we have One Hundred Percent Government Intervention. Here we find total Government control over every aspect of life. This is the kind of environment visualized by authors such as Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, who attempted to highlight the dangers of
allowing Government to become oppressive. Here we find ourselves in the sinister world of Total Control, of citizens directed in their every move and every thought by an ever-watchful Big Brother.
Fortunately most of us experience neither anarchy in the sense of zero Government, nor the total oppression of one hundred percent Government. But these two positions provide clear end-points as reference positions.
More familiar to Western countries is the Low Degree of a nominal 25% Government Intervention.
This is represented by the term Laisser-faire, meaning literally “let people get on with it”.
The first exponent of Laisser-faire was Francis Quesnay, physician to Louis XV, who came to the conclusion that government was a necessary evil which should interfere as little as possible with individual freedom.
The pioneering thought of Quesnay was developed into one of the most powerful doctrines in the history of ideas by Adam Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, whose work The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776) became the gospel of the “System of National Liberty” for the next century in European and American thought.
Smith held that the source of a nation’s wealth is labour. The increase in a nation’s wealth therefore depends on making labour more efficient, which is achieved by enhancing the investment of capital, developing specialization and mass production, and promoting the free flow of goods and
materials in international trade.
To give full play to this complicated but natural and vital operation, the whole process must remain free from artificial restrictions of government.
This thesis was undoubtedly proposed as a constructive scientific-economic blueprint for the general growth, welfare and benefit of society as a whole, and in theory at least it is difficult to
argue against it.
But in production and commerce, as in all aspects of inter-human relationships, there is always opportunity for infringement of liberty, for injury, for some to gain through others’ loss. And as the Industrial Revolution unfolded it would become clear that infringement of liberty in industry could be taken to, and indeed well beyond, levels which were unacceptable to anyone with knowledge of working conditions in industry and a modicum of social conscience.
Though Adam Smith saw benefit for all, in practice it would be the owners of capital, production equipment and factory premises who would benefit, to the detriment and impoverishment of those
in the weaker position: their employees, the ex-hand-weavers now displaced by machines and clamoring for work at any price to ward off starvation. Women and children were paid a meager wage for long hours of concentrated work tending the machines which were dangerous, unguarded, and caused frequent accidents for which there was neither care nor compensation.
And the Law was predictably slow to act in their defence. The bankers, investors and industrialists, being either in power or influential in the formulation of government policy, naturally supported a system which gave them a free rein to take advantage of their superior position. Laisser-faire for them was every bit as rewarding as Adam Smith had promised.
But at the same time it was becoming clear to reformers both in and out of Parliament that while accepting the basic doctrine of Liberty, an increase in Government Intervention was necessary to protect workers and improve their lot.
The movement for reform by legislation in England began with the Factory Acts which between 1833 and 1845 succeeded in limiting the work of children under eleven years of age to nine hours a day and of women to twelve hours. These Acts prohibited the employment of children in mines, and for the first time provided general rules for the health and safety of all workers.
So it was that Government Intervention began steadily to increase, with the justifiable aim of eliminating some of the more blatant opportunities for citizen to infringe the liberties of fellow citizen. But the pace of reform was too slow for the newly awakening, increasingly organized and educated working classes. And the pendulum of Government Intervention was to swing over to the
other extreme: to Socialism and Communism which represented a much higher degree of Intervention than most reformers would ever have visualized.
Under Socialism and Communism we enter the higher realms of Government Intervention, say a nominal 75%, where an increase in the power of Government and the State is actively pursued. “Place everything in the hands of the State”, the Socialists urged, “and the State will take good care of us all”.
Set against the Victorian backdrop of widespread poverty, ignorance, ill-health and malnutrition,coupled with a concurrently growing sense of conscience and the need for reform, Socialism
appeared to offer the answer. Only a few there were who could foresee the implications of high and ever-increasing State Control. One such visionary was Herbert Spencer, who in 1884 wrote:
“There is an increasing tendency for administrative compulsion and restraints. The increasing power of the State is accompanied by a de-creasing power of the rest of society to resist its further growth and control. The multiplication of careers opened by a developing bureaucracy tempts members of the classes who regulate it to favour its extension, as adding to the chances of safe and respectable employment for their relatives. The people at large, led to look on benefits received
through public agencies as gratis benefits, have their hopes continually excited by the prospects of more.
“Thus influences of various kinds conspire to increase State action and decrease individual action.
The numerous Socialistic changes already made by Act of Parliament, joined with the numerous others about to be made, will soon be all merged in State-socialism, swallowed in the vast wave which they have little by little raised.”
Spencer’s words have proved prophetically correct in the light, not only of State oppression in the Soviet Union, but also of attitudes, demands, high taxes and budget deficits in the West.
Nations and their Governments create three kinds of political environment: enslavement, oppression, and liberty.
Enslavement, exploitation and imposition result from a Low Degree of Government Intervention,
or Laisser-faire, which permits infringement of liberty by citizens.
Oppression, Government intrusion and State takeover of business results from a High Degree of Government Intervention, or Socialism-Communism, which creates infringement of liberty by Government.
And where can we find Liberty?
Certainly not at Zero Percent Government Intervention. At Zero Percent Intervention there is no protection of Liberty whatsoever.
So we move away from this condition of lawlessness, proceeding up the Intervention Scale. As we do so a gradual increase in Government Intervention provides basic law, order and personal safety, followed as we progress further up the scale by more sophisticated forms of protection such as consumer, employee and environmental protection.
How far should we continue to increase intervention?
The Right-wing definition of Liberty as “minimum Government Intervention” has always been a powerful argument, enhanced today in the light of both the experience and the demise of Soviet Socialism. Just as innocence until proved guilty is a cornerstone of the English judicial tradition, so too does the Anglo-American concept of Law recognize what may be called Presumption of
Liberty, the concept that we should all be free unless there is a very good reason for the law to limit that freedom.
And what constitutes a “very good reason” for the law to limit freedom? Another very old established precept of English Common Law provides an answer: it is entirely reasonable for the law to limit or to forbid an action if that action is harmful or injurious to others.
So we continue to increase Intervention gradually until we reach the point at which there is sufficient Government Intervention to ensure full protection of each and every individual’s liberty from infringement by others in any way. This point is the halfway mark on the Scale, represented by 50% Government Intervention. Under a regime of 50% Government Intervention no opportunity whatsoever would be permitted for one individual or class or group to harm or enslave or to infringe the liberty of any others.
At this point we have achieved one “side” of liberty. As we make the final move from 49% to the 50% mark, we have succeeded in eliminating all infringement of liberty by defending the citizen against any and all forms of injury or imposition by other citizens.
But now we must guard against going any further, which would lead us into oppression. We have already defined the 50% mark as being the precise degree of Government Intervention necessary to prevent any and all infringements of liberty between citizens. So if we increase intervention any further Government can only begin producing laws which are not strictly in the protection of liberty, and are therefore intrusive and oppressive.
As Government Intervention increases beyond 50% a progressive reduction of liberty immediately begins; its effects are painful, and lead ultimately to total oppression. Yet it is an easy road to take.
The dream of “total care” by a benevolent Government, though impossible to attain, is nonetheless tempting. And the movement from 50% to higher and ever higher degrees of intervention in people’s personal lives can begin all too easily with laws “for our own good”. But secretive Government, oppressive laws, excessive industrial regulation and dictatorial land-use planning will
soon begin to develop. Under a policy of 50% Intervention, Government prevents individuals from imposing their will and judgments upon one another, but initiates no imposition through Government excess. 50% Government Intervention neither permits nor creates Infringement of Liberty. Government intervenes promptly when, but only when the law is required to protect a clearly identifiable infringement of liberty.
If there is any opportunity for any citizen to infringe the liberty of any other citizen, if any citizen suffers infringement of liberty to any degree or in any way at the hands of any other citizen, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 49% or some lower degree of intervention.
Government is permitting a degree of enslavement.
On the other hand, if Government issues any law, order or directive which is not clearly in defence of an identifiable liberty, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 51% or some higher degree
of intervention.
Government is initiating some degree of oppression.
The ability to define the seemingly diverse elements and options of anarchy, enslavement and oppression, of laisser-faire and Socialism-Communism, of Right and Left on the single common
scale of Government Intervention allows us to define Liberty very precisely.
Liberty is maximized when the degree of Government Intervention is 50%: no less, and no more.
Liberty and Government Intervention
The Principle of Liberty is an ideal. It is an expression of human social conscience, of our fundamental sense of right and wrong in our dealings with others. It reflects the ancient concepts of Natural Law and English Common Law. But the Principle of Liberty can also be defined with considerable accuracy in terms of the degree Government Intervention.
Throughout most of our political history Government has pursued a policy of laisser-faire or minimal intervention in the affairs of society, thus permitting those with superior forces of personality, intelligence and wealth to increase their wellbeing by diminishing that of others.
Insufficient Government intervention permits citizens to harm and exploit one another. That is the essence of Right WingConservatism. Under this regime freedom is increased for some but decreased for others; hence the overall liberty is not maximized.
The Socialist reaction gave Government, or the State, considerably greater powers of intervention designed to help the poor by preventing exploitation and readjusting the balance of wealth.
But excessive Government intervention initiates exploitation and oppression by the State. That is the essence of Left Wing Socialism. Under this regime Liberty is increased by Government protection, but it is then decreased as Government goes further and creates oppression. Again, Liberty is not maximized.
Liberty is maximized when Government offers full protection, but without moving into oppression.
It thus becomes clear that the significant factor in Government policy, and the Liberty it produces, is the Degree of Government Intervention.
The Degree of Government Intervention can be shown as a simple straight-line scale, calibrated from Zero to One Hundred Percent.
At one end of the Scale we have Zero Percent Government Intervention, which means that Government quite simply does nothing at all. Government is to all intents and purposes nonexistent.
The result is anarchy in its pure sense of being without leader. In this condition everyone is free to do whatever they like; but this also includes the freedom to limit or eliminate the freedom of others. Freedom can be absolute, or it can be nothing, depending on your strength, skill, cunning, or luck! Liberty, in the sense of a disciplined freedom resulting in a safe and ordered society, could not be said to exist under this regime.
At the other end of the Scale we have One Hundred Percent Government Intervention. Here we find total Government control over every aspect of life. This is the kind of environment visualized by authors such as Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, who attempted to highlight the dangers of
allowing Government to become oppressive. Here we find ourselves in the sinister world of Total Control, of citizens directed in their every move and every thought by an ever-watchful Big Brother.
Fortunately most of us experience neither anarchy in the sense of zero Government, nor the total oppression of one hundred percent Government. But these two positions provide clear end-points as reference positions.
More familiar to Western countries is the Low Degree of a nominal 25% Government Intervention.
This is represented by the term Laisser-faire, meaning literally “let people get on with it”.
The first exponent of Laisser-faire was Francis Quesnay, physician to Louis XV, who came to the conclusion that government was a necessary evil which should interfere as little as possible with individual freedom.
The pioneering thought of Quesnay was developed into one of the most powerful doctrines in the history of ideas by Adam Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, whose work The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776) became the gospel of the “System of National Liberty” for the next century in European and American thought.
Smith held that the source of a nation’s wealth is labour. The increase in a nation’s wealth therefore depends on making labour more efficient, which is achieved by enhancing the investment of capital, developing specialization and mass production, and promoting the free flow of goods and
materials in international trade.
To give full play to this complicated but natural and vital operation, the whole process must remain free from artificial restrictions of government.
This thesis was undoubtedly proposed as a constructive scientific-economic blueprint for the general growth, welfare and benefit of society as a whole, and in theory at least it is difficult to
argue against it.
But in production and commerce, as in all aspects of inter-human relationships, there is always opportunity for infringement of liberty, for injury, for some to gain through others’ loss. And as the Industrial Revolution unfolded it would become clear that infringement of liberty in industry could be taken to, and indeed well beyond, levels which were unacceptable to anyone with knowledge of working conditions in industry and a modicum of social conscience.
Though Adam Smith saw benefit for all, in practice it would be the owners of capital, production equipment and factory premises who would benefit, to the detriment and impoverishment of those
in the weaker position: their employees, the ex-hand-weavers now displaced by machines and clamoring for work at any price to ward off starvation. Women and children were paid a meager wage for long hours of concentrated work tending the machines which were dangerous, unguarded, and caused frequent accidents for which there was neither care nor compensation.
And the Law was predictably slow to act in their defence. The bankers, investors and industrialists, being either in power or influential in the formulation of government policy, naturally supported a system which gave them a free rein to take advantage of their superior position. Laisser-faire for them was every bit as rewarding as Adam Smith had promised.
But at the same time it was becoming clear to reformers both in and out of Parliament that while accepting the basic doctrine of Liberty, an increase in Government Intervention was necessary to protect workers and improve their lot.
The movement for reform by legislation in England began with the Factory Acts which between 1833 and 1845 succeeded in limiting the work of children under eleven years of age to nine hours a day and of women to twelve hours. These Acts prohibited the employment of children in mines, and for the first time provided general rules for the health and safety of all workers.
So it was that Government Intervention began steadily to increase, with the justifiable aim of eliminating some of the more blatant opportunities for citizen to infringe the liberties of fellow citizen. But the pace of reform was too slow for the newly awakening, increasingly organized and educated working classes. And the pendulum of Government Intervention was to swing over to the
other extreme: to Socialism and Communism which represented a much higher degree of Intervention than most reformers would ever have visualized.
Under Socialism and Communism we enter the higher realms of Government Intervention, say a nominal 75%, where an increase in the power of Government and the State is actively pursued. “Place everything in the hands of the State”, the Socialists urged, “and the State will take good care of us all”.
Set against the Victorian backdrop of widespread poverty, ignorance, ill-health and malnutrition,coupled with a concurrently growing sense of conscience and the need for reform, Socialism
appeared to offer the answer. Only a few there were who could foresee the implications of high and ever-increasing State Control. One such visionary was Herbert Spencer, who in 1884 wrote:
“There is an increasing tendency for administrative compulsion and restraints. The increasing power of the State is accompanied by a de-creasing power of the rest of society to resist its further growth and control. The multiplication of careers opened by a developing bureaucracy tempts members of the classes who regulate it to favour its extension, as adding to the chances of safe and respectable employment for their relatives. The people at large, led to look on benefits received
through public agencies as gratis benefits, have their hopes continually excited by the prospects of more.
“Thus influences of various kinds conspire to increase State action and decrease individual action.
The numerous Socialistic changes already made by Act of Parliament, joined with the numerous others about to be made, will soon be all merged in State-socialism, swallowed in the vast wave which they have little by little raised.”
Spencer’s words have proved prophetically correct in the light, not only of State oppression in the Soviet Union, but also of attitudes, demands, high taxes and budget deficits in the West.
Nations and their Governments create three kinds of political environment: enslavement, oppression, and liberty.
Enslavement, exploitation and imposition result from a Low Degree of Government Intervention,
or Laisser-faire, which permits infringement of liberty by citizens.
Oppression, Government intrusion and State takeover of business results from a High Degree of Government Intervention, or Socialism-Communism, which creates infringement of liberty by Government.
And where can we find Liberty?
Certainly not at Zero Percent Government Intervention. At Zero Percent Intervention there is no protection of Liberty whatsoever.
So we move away from this condition of lawlessness, proceeding up the Intervention Scale. As we do so a gradual increase in Government Intervention provides basic law, order and personal safety, followed as we progress further up the scale by more sophisticated forms of protection such as consumer, employee and environmental protection.
How far should we continue to increase intervention?
The Right-wing definition of Liberty as “minimum Government Intervention” has always been a powerful argument, enhanced today in the light of both the experience and the demise of Soviet Socialism. Just as innocence until proved guilty is a cornerstone of the English judicial tradition, so too does the Anglo-American concept of Law recognize what may be called Presumption of
Liberty, the concept that we should all be free unless there is a very good reason for the law to limit that freedom.
And what constitutes a “very good reason” for the law to limit freedom? Another very old established precept of English Common Law provides an answer: it is entirely reasonable for the law to limit or to forbid an action if that action is harmful or injurious to others.
So we continue to increase Intervention gradually until we reach the point at which there is sufficient Government Intervention to ensure full protection of each and every individual’s liberty from infringement by others in any way. This point is the halfway mark on the Scale, represented by 50% Government Intervention. Under a regime of 50% Government Intervention no opportunity whatsoever would be permitted for one individual or class or group to harm or enslave or to infringe the liberty of any others.
At this point we have achieved one “side” of liberty. As we make the final move from 49% to the 50% mark, we have succeeded in eliminating all infringement of liberty by defending the citizen against any and all forms of injury or imposition by other citizens.
But now we must guard against going any further, which would lead us into oppression. We have already defined the 50% mark as being the precise degree of Government Intervention necessary to prevent any and all infringements of liberty between citizens. So if we increase intervention any further Government can only begin producing laws which are not strictly in the protection of liberty, and are therefore intrusive and oppressive.
As Government Intervention increases beyond 50% a progressive reduction of liberty immediately begins; its effects are painful, and lead ultimately to total oppression. Yet it is an easy road to take.
The dream of “total care” by a benevolent Government, though impossible to attain, is nonetheless tempting. And the movement from 50% to higher and ever higher degrees of intervention in people’s personal lives can begin all too easily with laws “for our own good”. But secretive Government, oppressive laws, excessive industrial regulation and dictatorial land-use planning will
soon begin to develop. Under a policy of 50% Intervention, Government prevents individuals from imposing their will and judgments upon one another, but initiates no imposition through Government excess. 50% Government Intervention neither permits nor creates Infringement of Liberty. Government intervenes promptly when, but only when the law is required to protect a clearly identifiable infringement of liberty.
If there is any opportunity for any citizen to infringe the liberty of any other citizen, if any citizen suffers infringement of liberty to any degree or in any way at the hands of any other citizen, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 49% or some lower degree of intervention.
Government is permitting a degree of enslavement.
On the other hand, if Government issues any law, order or directive which is not clearly in defence of an identifiable liberty, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 51% or some higher degree
of intervention.
Government is initiating some degree of oppression.
The ability to define the seemingly diverse elements and options of anarchy, enslavement and oppression, of laisser-faire and Socialism-Communism, of Right and Left on the single common
scale of Government Intervention allows us to define Liberty very precisely.
Liberty is maximized when the degree of Government Intervention is 50%: no less, and no more.
Comments