!!!***Personal Liberty***!!!
There is a naturally definable Personal Area which inherently “belongs” to each individual: the mind, body and products of the individual’s labour, that which is directly associated with, or
attributable to the individual.
Legislation applicable in this Personal Area deals with what is already by creation and by definition the individual’s property. The Principle of Liberty requires protection without intrusion.
This would be reflected first and foremost in the simple requirement that Government should “prevent men from injuring one another”. Many may feel that Government should do much more; but few would dispute the proposition that personal protection must form the essential basis of law.
Security of body and mind from intrusion by others naturally includes legislation and protection against murder or physical injury. We must also include the more subtle forms of intrusion such as excessive noise, light trespass, and air pollution.
Freedom of speech is highly respected in the politically developed countries; its importance lies particularly in the protection of citizens from Government attempts to stifle opposition, and in the benefits of ensuring the free flow and development of ideas. But should the Law permit the open publication of lies and defamation of character? Clearly not, as there is injury here. Freedom of speech, like freedom of action in general, cannot be absolute.
What is important, as in all cases of interpretation of the Principle of Liberty, is that each and every actual, potential or suspected injury be fully explored, then minimized or eliminated. The existence
of injury places a clear obligation upon legislators to identify and prevent it.
But the absolute need to show the existence of injury also exercises restraint over legislators, who cannot act except in the protection of liberty from clear, definable and explicit injury or intrusion.
The Principle of Liberty is accurately reflected, and liberty is maximized, when the citizen is fully protected from personal harm or injury or interference, theft or deprivation of property. This is
represented by a degree of Intervention of 50%, no less, and no more. If this protective force is exerted by Law and Enforcement in all cases of infringement of Personal Liberty then the Law is
applying a precise degree of 50% Intervention.
The theoretical degree of 50% Intervention marks a significant point in legislative activity, a high point in effect, since up to 50% government intervention has been on the increase as it strives to
minimize or eliminate any and all forms of identifiable injury. From this point on however, it is not government that needs to be on the lookout for injury caused to citizen by another or other citizens.
Rather it is watchful citizens who must be ever on the lookout against government interference into citizens’ private lives.
If the Law now increases its degree of Intervention beyond 50%, to a nominal 51% or further, it is exerting not a protective or defensive force, but an aggressive, intrusive force. At this point we start
to lose connection with the Principle of Liberty, as the Law itself begins to create infringement of citizens’ liberties.
One very simple test of Government force or intervention, by which we can define whether a particular Law is defensive or intrusive, is to ask whether or not the Law concerned is in defence of
a specifically identifiable Liberty against a clearly definable infringement by another. If it is, then it is protective. If it is not, then that Law is intrusive and exceeds 50% Intervention. Under a Policy of
50% Intervention there can be no Law and no crime without an Injury, without a clear infringement of the Liberty of one citizen by another.
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 some higher degree of Intervention.
It might easily be assumed that Government, especially in a “free” and democratic country, rarely if ever strays into oppression. The assumption would regrettably be quite erroneous. A high degree
of Intervention in the Personal Area is quite common, and increasing.
Governments slip into the beginnings of oppression in several ways: by legislating “for the citizen’s own good”, by engaging in telephone-tapping, snooping, spying and other intrusive activities in the name of national security, and by claiming through the process of taxation-as-ofright an ever-increasing proportion of the citizen’s earnings which are then disbursed at Government’s absolute discretion.
Laws which intrude into personal, private lives “for our own good” represent the first step into 51% Intervention and beyond. The first step is the most significant; once that is taken by Government,
and citizens have accepted with their compliance, the safe confines of the Principle of Liberty have been breached, and further steps will inevitably follow.
The motive behind this type of “personal welfare” legislation is the presumption that Government has the right, or even the obligation, to impose directives on conduct relating exclusively to the individual’s private welfare; this assumes, dangerously, Government superiority. “We think it’s good for you, we know best, therefore you must be required to do it by law”. Should we accept that others know better? Most certainly one should always be open to professional advice, and similarly it is wise always to consider and practice prudent personal behaviour. But should we accept compulsory direction by Government of private lives and conduct, direction which in no way protects, simply reduces political liberty? If we do so, then we
are humoring Government dangerously; we are acquiescing to the myth of Government superiority; and we are encouraging other similar intrusions into private life and conduct.
Today it is seatbelts and mass-medication through the water supply (fluoridation); tomorrow no doubt, as a simple logical extension of the same principle, it will be mass cold baths and early morning exercises under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Wellbeing. People might be healthier in body, but the health of political liberty would take a severe turn for the worst.
No persons either individually or through Government, should impose their will, their way of life, their judgments or their brand of wisdom on the private lives of others no matter how correct they
might think their own way of life to be and how wrong they think that of others. The Principle of Liberty and the laws which reflect it respect the individual’s right to do things which might be considered foolish or unwise, provided they do not harm others.
It is important that we should remain ever watchful in regard to the expansionary activities and influences of Government in order to ensure that Intervention never exceeds the precise degree of
50%. When citizens infringe the Liberties of one another they fortunately have limited scope to do so, and those harmed can find remedy in law. But when the law slides into the path of oppression,
remedy is more difficult to find, the effects are much more far-reaching, and the trend is difficult to halt or reverse.
The function of Government-and-Constitution is to clarify issues and to draw boundaries, boundaries between people so they will not infringe the liberties of one another, and boundaries beyond which governance and law may not pass, lest governance itself initiate unwarranted intrusions of individual liberty. But ultimately, if a truly fair and just society can be established and preserved, it should fall upon individual citizens to remain constantly aware that in the justified and indeed laudable enhancement of their own individual
prosperity and liberty, they should not do so at the expense of the liberty of others.
There is a naturally definable Personal Area which inherently “belongs” to each individual: the mind, body and products of the individual’s labour, that which is directly associated with, or
attributable to the individual.
Legislation applicable in this Personal Area deals with what is already by creation and by definition the individual’s property. The Principle of Liberty requires protection without intrusion.
This would be reflected first and foremost in the simple requirement that Government should “prevent men from injuring one another”. Many may feel that Government should do much more; but few would dispute the proposition that personal protection must form the essential basis of law.
Security of body and mind from intrusion by others naturally includes legislation and protection against murder or physical injury. We must also include the more subtle forms of intrusion such as excessive noise, light trespass, and air pollution.
Freedom of speech is highly respected in the politically developed countries; its importance lies particularly in the protection of citizens from Government attempts to stifle opposition, and in the benefits of ensuring the free flow and development of ideas. But should the Law permit the open publication of lies and defamation of character? Clearly not, as there is injury here. Freedom of speech, like freedom of action in general, cannot be absolute.
What is important, as in all cases of interpretation of the Principle of Liberty, is that each and every actual, potential or suspected injury be fully explored, then minimized or eliminated. The existence
of injury places a clear obligation upon legislators to identify and prevent it.
But the absolute need to show the existence of injury also exercises restraint over legislators, who cannot act except in the protection of liberty from clear, definable and explicit injury or intrusion.
The Principle of Liberty is accurately reflected, and liberty is maximized, when the citizen is fully protected from personal harm or injury or interference, theft or deprivation of property. This is
represented by a degree of Intervention of 50%, no less, and no more. If this protective force is exerted by Law and Enforcement in all cases of infringement of Personal Liberty then the Law is
applying a precise degree of 50% Intervention.
The theoretical degree of 50% Intervention marks a significant point in legislative activity, a high point in effect, since up to 50% government intervention has been on the increase as it strives to
minimize or eliminate any and all forms of identifiable injury. From this point on however, it is not government that needs to be on the lookout for injury caused to citizen by another or other citizens.
Rather it is watchful citizens who must be ever on the lookout against government interference into citizens’ private lives.
If the Law now increases its degree of Intervention beyond 50%, to a nominal 51% or further, it is exerting not a protective or defensive force, but an aggressive, intrusive force. At this point we start
to lose connection with the Principle of Liberty, as the Law itself begins to create infringement of citizens’ liberties.
One very simple test of Government force or intervention, by which we can define whether a particular Law is defensive or intrusive, is to ask whether or not the Law concerned is in defence of
a specifically identifiable Liberty against a clearly definable infringement by another. If it is, then it is protective. If it is not, then that Law is intrusive and exceeds 50% Intervention. Under a Policy of
50% Intervention there can be no Law and no crime without an Injury, without a clear infringement of the Liberty of one citizen by another.
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 some higher degree of Intervention.
It might easily be assumed that Government, especially in a “free” and democratic country, rarely if ever strays into oppression. The assumption would regrettably be quite erroneous. A high degree
of Intervention in the Personal Area is quite common, and increasing.
Governments slip into the beginnings of oppression in several ways: by legislating “for the citizen’s own good”, by engaging in telephone-tapping, snooping, spying and other intrusive activities in the name of national security, and by claiming through the process of taxation-as-ofright an ever-increasing proportion of the citizen’s earnings which are then disbursed at Government’s absolute discretion.
Laws which intrude into personal, private lives “for our own good” represent the first step into 51% Intervention and beyond. The first step is the most significant; once that is taken by Government,
and citizens have accepted with their compliance, the safe confines of the Principle of Liberty have been breached, and further steps will inevitably follow.
The motive behind this type of “personal welfare” legislation is the presumption that Government has the right, or even the obligation, to impose directives on conduct relating exclusively to the individual’s private welfare; this assumes, dangerously, Government superiority. “We think it’s good for you, we know best, therefore you must be required to do it by law”. Should we accept that others know better? Most certainly one should always be open to professional advice, and similarly it is wise always to consider and practice prudent personal behaviour. But should we accept compulsory direction by Government of private lives and conduct, direction which in no way protects, simply reduces political liberty? If we do so, then we
are humoring Government dangerously; we are acquiescing to the myth of Government superiority; and we are encouraging other similar intrusions into private life and conduct.
Today it is seatbelts and mass-medication through the water supply (fluoridation); tomorrow no doubt, as a simple logical extension of the same principle, it will be mass cold baths and early morning exercises under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Wellbeing. People might be healthier in body, but the health of political liberty would take a severe turn for the worst.
No persons either individually or through Government, should impose their will, their way of life, their judgments or their brand of wisdom on the private lives of others no matter how correct they
might think their own way of life to be and how wrong they think that of others. The Principle of Liberty and the laws which reflect it respect the individual’s right to do things which might be considered foolish or unwise, provided they do not harm others.
It is important that we should remain ever watchful in regard to the expansionary activities and influences of Government in order to ensure that Intervention never exceeds the precise degree of
50%. When citizens infringe the Liberties of one another they fortunately have limited scope to do so, and those harmed can find remedy in law. But when the law slides into the path of oppression,
remedy is more difficult to find, the effects are much more far-reaching, and the trend is difficult to halt or reverse.
The function of Government-and-Constitution is to clarify issues and to draw boundaries, boundaries between people so they will not infringe the liberties of one another, and boundaries beyond which governance and law may not pass, lest governance itself initiate unwarranted intrusions of individual liberty. But ultimately, if a truly fair and just society can be established and preserved, it should fall upon individual citizens to remain constantly aware that in the justified and indeed laudable enhancement of their own individual
prosperity and liberty, they should not do so at the expense of the liberty of others.
Comments