💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000223.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:14:56.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A Defense of the Freedom to be Left Alone
BAD Broadside #4
We live in an invasive society. Our freedom to peacefully lead our
lives as we please is severely restricted by laws, rules, and
regulations instituted by governments of all sorts and their
supporters among the populace. We are subject to a huge number of
laws, among which are laws that: outlaw certain forms of consensual
sex; ban public nudity; restrict the sale or production of sexually
explicit books and films; criminalize the sale of sexual favors;
prohibit ownership of handguns; require us to get notes from a
physician to buy certain medicines; prevent us from seeking the
assistance of another in ending our own lives; fine us for not wearing
seatbelts; and attempt to prevent us from using the recreational drugs
of our choice. Why do people tolerate such a level of government
interference in their personal lives? Because they have been convinced
that individuals and society need to be protected from the
consequences of "bad" choices people might make if they were left
alone.
Governments presume that they know better what is good for others
than do those people themselves. These rulers seem to think that when
other people make choices that they consider unwise, unhealthy, or
immoral, those people are misbehaving because they are either
uninformed, stupid, or physically, psychologically, or morally
diseased. The state then feel justified in stepping in to prevent the
"unenlightened" from harming themselves. These busybodies fail to see
that other people can freely choose to engage in activities of which
they disapprove.
People like different things and have different ideas about how to
lead their lives. Some prefer heterosex, some homosex, some both, some
neither. Some like coffee and cigarettes, others vodka and cocaine.
Some prefer to have physicians tell them how to stay or get healthy
and what medicines to take, others would prefer non-medical healers or
wish to make their own choice about what drugs they wish to use. Some
choose to engage in sex for free, while others are willing to pay for
or sell sexual favors. These activities are the result of freely made
choices and no one is affected by any of them except the individuals
who voluntarily engage in them. Therefore, they should not be the
business of anyone but the participants and should not be interfered
with by others.
People sometimes engage in activities that are potentially harmful
to them because the pleasure or benefit they derive or hope to derive
from the activity is more important to them than the actual or
potential harm the activity may cause them. People smoke tobacco
despite the increase in lung cancer and emphysema risk associated with
it because of the pleasure they get from smoking. Some people engage
in sexual activity, like cocksucking without condoms, which carries
some risk of causing HIV infection, because the sexual pleasure they
obtain is worth the small risk of being infected and perhaps
developing AIDS. Such choices should be left entirely up to the
individual, since no one else is harmed. We should be free to live our
lives as we please, even if we make some decisions that turn out to
have been unwise.
Some voluntary activities are prohibited or regulated because they
have the potential to involve others involuntarily. Since guns can be
used to kill others, the argument is made that gun ownership should be
regulated to prevent possible harm to others. Some harmed by guns
deserve to be harmed, as when gun owners are defending themselves or
their property, but sometimes innocent others are harmed by gun
owners. The fact that non-invasive people are sometimes injured or
killed when guns are freely available, however, does not justify
restricting their availability. Non-coercive people are also sometimes
hurt or die in car accidents, but few, if any, advocate banning cars
for this reason. Just because a gun or car can be misused to hurt
someone who has not injured the owner does not justify banning it.
Supporters of interventionist governments would argue that no or
little risk is acceptable in society. However, the problem with this
outlook is that lowering risk means restricting freedom. A society
that values freedom will necessarily be a society which allows people
the freedom to engage in risky behavior. We must make a choice: either
a free, somewhat risky world, or a safe and secure, but stifling and
unfree one.
Politicians of all political tendencies, rightists and leftists
alike, support government intervention in other people's lives.
Conservatives and conventional liberals may be more crass and open
about their interventionism, but they hold no monopoly on it. The
socialist left is perfectly willing to interfere with the affairs of
others, and the socialist states have an even worse record than the
united states when it comes to restrictions on individual freedom.
Few leftists criticize the prescription system or laws against
recreational drug use, for instance, and the socialist states are
notorious for persecuting people who engage in homosexual sex.
No government of any sort, no matter what its size or political
orientation, will leave people alone. The nature and mission of
government is to interfere with free individuals and tell them how
they should live their lives. We will only be truly and completely
free when people finally decide that they can live better and more
freely without any government and begin the process of building a
stateless society.
NO COPYRIGHT
Please send two copies of any review or reprint
of all or part of this to:
Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade
(BAD Brigade)
PO Box 1323
Cambridge, MA 02238
Internet: bbrigade@world.std.com
November 1991