I used to live in a free society. The key phrase in that sentence is "used to live". At one time, freedom, was respected and privacy was revered. Persons in the United States were once free to be individuals. In fact, it was the lack of personal and individual freedom which irritated the founding fathers so much that when the United States was formed these freedoms were given exalted status.
To be sure, people were not free to commit rape, murder, and robbery. But these were terrible crimes which no one person in society condoned. Almost unanimously, these crimes were condemned by society and persons who committed them were punished. The "Law of the West" not withstanding, murder and other crimes so strongly impinge upon the freedom of others that they cannot be tolerated. These crimes were termed "malum in se" by lawyers and others who spoke Latin but had trouble expressing themselves in English.
Soon however, the environment this personal freedom fostered became so prosperous and desireable that others flocked to the United States. These others were not equipped to be responsible for themselves (and no one is suggesting people are now). These people were used to following and did not wish to change their traditions and beliefs. Not content to follow their own ideas in freedom, they were afraid that this new freedom would allow their children, and their children's children, and their spouses and friends to change their behaviour and actions. Thus, in order ro preserve their world view, new laws were needed. I am NOT speaking of laws "respecting religion" which are prohibited by the Constitution. I AM speaking of laws which impinge personal freedom in the name of the police power. They are well-known. They are the ones that protect health, safety, welfare and morals.
There are two types of police power laws. There are those like the crimes mentioned before and similar laws such as those against drunken driving. Again, the consequences of breaking these laws are so dire that limits had to be placed on the personal freedoms of individuals. Then there are those like the laws against prostitution or the now-repealed law against drinking. These laws protect no one but the person who is made the criminal by them. The prostitute harms no one, except maybe him or herself, when the crime is committed. A drinker who has a drink at home has only hurt him or herself, if anyone at all.
The only possible harm to anyone only comes when these people come in contact with someone in a different way. For example, when a prostitute transmits a communicable disease or the drinkier kills someone while driving drunk. The law then, seems more logically to be one which makes it a crime to transmit the disease or drive drunk. In other words, the crime should be that which causes the harm to the other's freedoms.
But there lies the problem. The writers of these laws are not attempting to address a harm to society. They are trying to promote a world view that says prostitution is wrong, or drinking is wrong. The facade of using the police power is justified by saying that the protection of the individual is protection of society. The tenuous connection is the ripples through society when such a crime is committed, or when the ultimate results of continued such action occur. The protection of the family and all that jaxx. Another concrete example: punishment of attempted suicide. THere is a tenuous link to say the family is harmed and that the state has a vested interest in keeping it's citizens alive. Even if it is only going to send them to die in a war.
The question now must be asked, "what about the person or family which doesn't share the same view of this protection?" The prostitute whose family is NOT shattered because a parent is a prostitute is NOT being protected. Perhaps they share the world view of the prostitute, not the lawmakers. The family of a drinker may not be abused, neglected, or ruined. They may share the drinker's world view. Crimes should be actions casing harm: not actions which challenge the world view of the lawmakers.
This ideal is not how the world now operates. Many laws restricting personal freedoms are really protecting not concrete harms, but rather the emotional frailties of people sho cannot stand to have their was of thinking challenged. To be sure, smoking can scientifically be linked to a harm caused by secondary smoke. But can we say that by making it a criminla offense, by subjecting smokers to such degradation which may very well "rock the family", that we have PREVENTED a harm? The REAL crime is in forcing others to passively smoke, not smoking itself. Smoking marijauna was not even approached as a crime because of this type of harm. Smoking marijuana was made a crime to protect the very families whose lives are daily and routinely ruined by making their members criminals and outcasts from society.
No, I used to live in a free society, and I may again. But for now I have to endure, and work against the imposition of someone else's ideas of freedom.
There has never been a free society. In fact looking back that freedom came at the cost of the slavery, pain and suffering of others therefore that was not "freedom" it was more like allowance of those regarded equal by such government. The main problem seems to come from lack of understanding and tolerance. We have grown as a population but as a species we are still sitting in the dark ages chasing witches and afraid of each others motives. Government can only impose control, freedom comes from individual's understanding its place in society. Then we can respect each other's freedom and maybe establish a legitimate government which educates instead of control the population.
ReplyDelete