Suicide As A Property Rights Issue- Part II

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

PART I

The moral argument for a right to suicide is firmly grounded in property rights. To many readers the very notion that suicide and ownership of tangible objects are interconnected is farfetched. Upon a superficial assessment of the premise, it is easy to jump to this conclusion. Once we get to the philosophical taproot of the concept of ownership the overlap between the two concepts becomes much more apparent. Fastened to the pillar of natural rights, the right of ownership is crucial in establishing all other rights. The ability to retain, transfer, and exclude others from one’s property lays down the framework for all other negative rights we cherish. For example, if a dinner guest offends us with an off-color joke at our house, we have the right to ask them to leave. The right of excludability. If the dinner guest is aware, we are offended by specific kinds of jokes, they fully consent to the conditions of the dinner party by opting to attend. Due to this variety of informal rule creation, there is no need to implement laws prohibiting offensive speech. Individual property owners can decide what types of jokes or language will be tolerated in their household.

The basis for ownership of tangible items goes back to an even deeper principle of self-ownership. If we do not own ourselves how can we possibly possess physical property? Either in the title or tangible form. The philosopher who bridges the gap between self-ownership and ownership of objects, locations, and intellectual property is no other than the great John Locke. At the most rudimentary level, we must own ourselves before we can possess any additional property. The extent to which this self-ownership is applicable is debatable. We can legally own ourselves. We have autonomy over (in most cases) our corporeal vessel that holds our inner organs. An individual can also exert control over their mind. Where does the right of an individual to own one’s self arise from?  This merely the abstract pontification of an out-of-touch philosopher? Most who have read Locke would staunchly disagree with the prior inference. Locke developed a concise explanation linking self-ownership to an unwavering natural right.

In Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689) he further expounds upon the natural basis for self-ownership. Arguably laying down the nascent substrate for the ethical arguments against slavery later on in the 19th century. The right to self-ownership is the result of divine providence. In Locke’s view, God gives us life and we are born free. For those who have more of a secular view of the world, it could state we are born free by our humanity. There is no grand authority that we must oblige by involuntarily transferring self-possession to as a result of cohesion.  

“…Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. (p.11)..”

Locke establishes that no one person has the right to own another human being. The implications of the above quote go beyond the abstract conceptualization of self-ownership. Due to a person owning themselves they also possess the fruits of their labor. If you work and toil to harvest lobsters in the icy waters off the coast of Maine, whatever you catch is rightfully yours. Providing you are not capturing so many lobsters that you are preventing others from having a chance to obtain the seafood delicacy. Nor are you procuring so many they will go to waste (p.12-15). Through self-possession and possession of our labor and the results of our labor, the natural rights argument for property ownership is pithily conveyed.

John Locke was correct about all people being born free and having possession of overall commodities, lands, and intellectual property that they have rightfully obtained through their labor. Where he went astray was asserting that natural rights are inalienable. Regardless of whether we procure these rights from god or as a result of our personhood, you can alienate these rights. Whether or not it is ethically justifiable is completely contingent on the consent of the individual. We have a natural right to free speech for example. While at work we temporarily or indefinitely suspend (for the duration of our employment) our right to unfettered speech as a condition of employment. There is nothing illegitimate about this arrangement because it expresses a form of tacit consent.  If you truly disagreed with the rules of the company you otherwise would not accept the job offer. Agreeing to conditions of employment can operate as a form of selling our natural rights. If we truly own ourselves and possess all of the natural rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution, why couldn’t we sell the title to our rights to other people? That is effectively what we do when after signing an employment agreement. Our natural rights cannot be transferred or relinquished unless we willingly agree to conditions or arrangements that nullify these rights.

One particularly controversial example of this concept was formulated by the Austrian economist and political theorist Walter Block. Dr. Block postulates that voluntary slavery is not incompatible with individual freedom. Such a position sounds antithetical to liberty, however, understanding the context is key. There is a difference between being forced at gunpoint into slavery and choosing to be a slave. Why would anyone choose to be a slave? They or a family member may owe an astronomical amount of money to a private individual and the only means of making restitution on their debts would be a lifetime of unpaid servitude.  It highly unlikely that anyone in modern times would consent to such an arrangement. Being able to sell one’s self to another person demonstrates an unfettered view of self-ownership. The laws prohibiting voluntary slavery are essentially are equally as unjust as keeping involuntary slavery legal. We can’t say that we truly own ourselves if we cannot do as we please with our bodies. That includes opting to sell ourselves into slavery.

The question becomes how does the argument for voluntary slavery apply to suicide? Logically it is predicated on the very same principle of self-ownership. If you truly own yourself and no one else has possession of your body and mind, then you have a right to kill yourself.  As jarring as this statement maybe it is nevertheless true. If we truly possess an object or an idea we can do as we please with it. We can sell the item or bit of intellectual property, or we can dispose of it. Nothing is stopping us from purchasing the latest iPhone at full retail price and then upon receiving the device, abruptly throwing it into a trashcan. While by the assessment of convention sensibilities such an action would irrational or foolish, no one has a right to prevent this behavior from occurring. Regardless of the perception of others, the notion of ownership prevents others from intervening. Some may criticize this example because it is comparing a replaceable item with the irreplaceable essence of human life. This critique is a fair one, however, that does not make this a false analogy.  The operative condition is the concept of ownership not what the individual is choosing to dispose of.  Regardless of the origin of where we obtain our natural rights from we do own ourselves. Much like anything else we own we have a right to dispose of ourselves. This is not making a moral judgment about the act of suicide in-of -itself. Nor is this a tacit endorsement of suicide. However, legality is no measure of morality. Nor is pressure to conform to societal norms.  If we legalized heroin use and prostitution tomorrow, these activities would not necessarily be moral.  But they would be legal. While these activities may be immoral, inferring an individual’s right to poison their body or engage in infidelity is also immoral. Immoral on a grander scale. When victimless crimes have codified sanctions, they are generally backed by the threat of incarnation, fines, or state violence.  

The decision to commit suicide is a deeply personal decision that should not be felt in the hands of doctors, psychologists, and especially nor legislators.  Attempts to intervene in suicide attempts are naturally transgressive against the individual’s property rights.  If indeed, we truly possess self-ownership.

Rights Are Reciprocal In Nature

Photo by Erlian Zakia on Pexels.com

The conclusion that can be drawn from Lysander Spooner’s expositions on slavery and the injustice of the Civil War is that the rights are reciprocal.  Compulsory associate in the form of statehood is nothing more than slavery supported through the force of the U.S. Military. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, slavery, and other forms of coerced association violate the same underlying principle. All these forms of forced association restrict autonomous individuals. Who possess the implied right of unrestricted mobility. Suggesting they can travel or reside where they please as long they are not transgressing against the property rights of others. The right to self-ownership. Some may claim that this right inalienable and cannot be voluntarily transferred to another individual.  However, ownership implies that the owner can dispose of, consume, preserve, or transfer whatever they own. Even if that were to be the title to their own life. This could be feasibly transferred to another person via voluntary contracts.  The same can be said for individual rights being sold off or transferred even for temporary durations of time. When at work we are expected to abstain from making off-color or politically incorrect jokes while on the clock. In exchange for briefly and voluntarily suspending our right to free speech, we receive a conditional paycheck and continued employment.

Compulsory statehood not only violates the right to self-ownership by having the federal government assume control over the dissent citizens. It also transgresses a natural corollary of self-ownership, the right to free association.  If an individual owns themselves, they can choose who they associate with. Some may argue that you don’t choose your neighbors. Directly this observation is true. Indirectly it is false. Through purchasing a home in a specific neighborhood to consent to live near the people in the adjacent and parallel domiciles. This is quite qualitatively different then be forced to reside in a specific neighborhood by law or threat of military force. If the individuals residing in a certain geographic area all share similar sentiments and opt to become an autonomous region that is their prerogative. Yes, the Confederate South was guilty of the sin of slavery. Even considering this moral misstep, why should their right to free association be viewed as any less valid. Giving credence to the colloquialism “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. If were to examine the example of Catalonia, many Americans would be much more sympathetic to their separatist cause. In 2017, the Catalonian successionist movement presents a similar scenario.  A group of individuals self-identifying as Catalonian wanting to separate from Spain. Paralleling the Confederacy’s sense of southern identity driving them to want to become a sovereign governing body. Catalonia’s movement is easier to empathize with because it hasn’t been sullied and stained by any association with atrocities of the same magnitude as slavery.

The are other instances of the right of the free association being obscure by another issue. One of the most salient enemies of free association is political correctness. It is a lens that serves to only distort the general principle of having the right to choose whom you keep company with. Often, if you defend the right of state succession or the right not to associate with minority groups, you will be accused of bigotry. People believing that an unwavering defense of free association being tantamount to tacitly being racist demonstrates a lack of nuanced understanding. Not to mention this is nothing more than a superficial inference. It is possible to disagree with Jim Crow laws but also oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Both sets of laws infer our right to free association. Jim Crow laws are an example of forced exclusion. The state restricting who you can dine with, socialize with, and trade with through compulsory law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 operates as a form of forced integration.  This phrase generally is utilized in the context of immigration it also applies within the context of the Civil Rights Act. Business owners are being forced by statutory law to ignore certain characteristics of job applicants in the hiring process. Even though the proprietor of the business does have legal title and liability for the enterprise he established and manages. There is even some debate as to whether private business owners have a right to discriminate against customers for nonessential goods and services. The Masterpiece Cakeshop LTD V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case did appear to be a victory in the arena of free association. Many have erroneously labeled this situation as gay rights case.  This is incorrect. The larger principle behind this case is not whether a business is inclusive and accepts the transactions from everyone. Rather does the proprietor have the right to decline? The fact that the case involves a gay couple is unfortunate because it muddies the waters. Instead of commentators being focused on the principle of private property and individual liberty, they are all too fixated on the sexuality of the patrons who were denied service. If this had been a Neo-Nazi that had been denied service, who there has been any controversy? No. Making it reasonable to surmise that the social justice stance on discrimination is not only antithetical to our natural rights but is also hypocritical.  If we are truly committed to the principle of equality, then shouldn’t all businesses be forced to transact with every customer? Regardless if they are intoxicated and belligerent or white supremacy?  This frequently ignored question could lead someone to believe that the equality principle is one-sided.

It is utterly perplexing that most people fail to see the equivalence between various rights. For example, the right to gun ownership implies that an individual can abstain from owning a gun. The Second Amendment of the Constitution is predicated on the natural law principle of the right to defend one’s self and property.  The reciprocal nature of this right is somewhat self-evident.  This concept could easily be extrapolated to and to any of our other natural rights.  The ability to discriminate is at the very core of the principle of free association. Anytime we choose to patronize one restaurant over another we are actively engaging in a form of discrimination. The gay couple who were denied service by the Masterpiece Cakeshop could have easily utilized this principle to convey their dissatisfaction with the owners. Word of mouth can be the death knell for a small business, the couple could have easily told all their friends, family, co-workers, etc. about the incident. Urging of their close acquaintances to avoid this shop like the plague. Opting to discriminate against the shop. Is this an invalid form of protest? Not. It is equally as valid as a private company choosing to not do business with the couple.

This principle of voluntary discrimination makes state succession valid and any attempts to thwart these actions aggression. The south actively chose to discriminate between tolerating the overreach of the federal government or form their voluntary block of associated states. Through self-ownership and mutual consent among the citizens residing south of the Mason-Dixon line, this movement was valid. President Lincoln’s nationalistic initiative to force the south back into the Union was conspicuously transgressive.  


 

Pueblo Lands

Photo by Kelsey Johnson on Pexels.com

Just a fun fact regarding the Pueblo tribe that originally resided in the U.S. Southwest. This tidbit of information is specific to the Pueblos domiciled in New Mexico. The “… lands were acquired under fee under Spanish rule…”. Once the territory of New Mexico was annexed by the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) in the aftermath of the Mexican War (p.272). This transferred right to the lands to the tribe versus the United States government holding the legal title.

Unfortunately, the technical aspects of the land own by New Mexican Pueblos are now minimal. As the tribe is presently in a trust relationship with the U.S. Government. See United States V. Sandoval (1913) (p.273). The tribe cannot “alienate their lands without the consent of the United States per United States V. Candelaria (1926) (p.273). Water rights for Pueblo lands are as applied by Winters Rights and are not different ( New Mexico V. Aamodt) from those of any other tribe (p.273).

Side Note: 

I may not be a trained lawyer. However, I am a Classic Liberal. That means I hold individual rights and property ownership in high regard. After all, I am following in the tradition of John Locke, and so on. If we strip away all the social justice rhetoric surrounding the government’s treatment of the tribes, there are a lot of violations of natural property rights. This opinion may not be based on past case precedence, but rather on unified philosophical principles. By the Treaty of Guadalupe, the tribe has legally transferred the right to their lands. While subsequent legislation may subordinate the strength of this previous agreement, did the tribe ever consent to the trust relationship with the United State’s government? From a purely a priori combined with some of the rhetoric surrounding past and present tribal/U.S. relations it would be fair to surmise no.

The legitimacy of the present guardianship dynamic between the New Mexican Pueblo tribe and the United States is suspect at best. Effectively, this arrangement transfers Pueblo lands to the federal government for relocation to the tribe. Many who are not as privy to the philosophical implication of property rights may find this alteration to landownership to be inconsequential or even a mere technicality. Taking such a superficial stance on this issue undermines property rights. Rightfully attained property should not be transferred to another party including the government without consent. This issue somewhat mirrors the overextension of civil asset forfeiture in cases of narcotic sales or instances of eminent domain. There may be laws on the books that provided legal justification for such actions. However, it is morally or philosophically justifiable? Could these laws be legitimate due to the fact they are unjust? Depending on your disposition towards property rights the answer can be a resounding no. Through this tacit acceptance of law equating moral correctness, we accept many unjust laws as being legitimate. This in turn transforms the Bureau of Indian Affairs into an institution that is more of an imposition than a facilitator of tribal rights. Inverting property rights, thereby shifting it from a negative right to a positive right. The BIA had the potential to operate in a manner that served to legitimately uphold tribal property rights. Like more bureaucratic departments within the government, it managed to make a bad situation worse. Instead of taking on the role of a property rights arbitrator between Indians and non-Indians, it became a property rights dispensary. Creating a perverse dynamic in which there is an inference that the Pueblos no longer own the land. When it was historically transferred to them by treaty. If this is true then the government has no business managing the land at all. Unless their property rights are being infringed upon. For example, non-Indians encroaching upon their water rights. There is a profound categorical confusion in attempting to protect property rights by first violating them. Making it appear as if it more of the pretext for circumventing Native property rights than defending them.

Bootleggers and Baptists XIII: The Dawes Act of 1887

Photo by Artem Beliaikin on Pexels.com

Frequently in public policy regulations that have nefarious intentions are obscured in a cloak of beneficence. Generally, the deeper you explore the history and the context behind the regulation or law its true purpose is eventually exposed. This is particularly true of many of the laws passed by the federal government intended to “help” Native Americans. Many of these paternal laws have done nothing more than subordinate the voluntary associate of tribal members to the authority of the federal government. I am not necessarily a proponent of the lofty, wide-eyed, and quixotic brand of social justice espoused by the contemporary left. But many of these laws impose notable restrictions on the natural rights of tribal members. Such as violating property rights, free association, contract enforcement, and even the right to self-determination. Regardless of the ethnicity of an individual, these rights should be upheld to all people. This isn’t so much a plea for equality of outcome, but rather a firmly held moral concern.  When the law is weaponized to legalize crimes against persons and property, the law has failed to achieve its ends.

One such act that codified a gross injustice against the native people of the United States was the Dawes Act of 1887. Colloquially known as the General Allotment Act. The legislation was sponsored by Massachusetts Senator Henry L. Dawes and was enacted in February 1887. The act provided the authority to the executive branch to allocate “.. portions of Reservation land to individual Indians..” for agricultural purposes. (p. 19-20) 160 acres would be provided to head-of-household and 80 acres to other individual tribe members.  The acreage was doubled if the land was only suitable for grazing (p.20). The aloof Baptists in this scenario justified this act on the moral grounds that this would help the native tribes in the long run. Alleviating the poverty tribal members experienced. Through providing land for cultivation the natives could be elevated to being a middle-class farmer and better assimilate to American society (p.19). If history is any indicator, good intentions and legislation have the propensity to result in tragic consequences for American Indians. Unwittingly, the good intentions of these nineteenth-century social justice warriors provided a moral smokescreen that allowed less sympathetic individuals to utilize the law for their callous benefit.

Land disputes between Natives and European settlers are nothing new. These disagreements date back to the early colonial period of America. Typically, the Native tribes received protection from the aggressive advances on tribal land by colonists from Britain. This is why during the revolution most tribes aligned themselves with the crown (p.10).  Then after the new republic was formed, the Articles of Confederation delegated the power of addressing Indian affairs with the federal government. This was done to preemptively avoid military conflicts with the tribes over land. Due to the financial stresses of the Revolutionary War (p.10). Under U.S. Const. Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3.  and Art II, Sec 2, Cl 2  congress was provided with the power to regulate tribal commerce and the President with the ability to make treaties with the tribes (p.11). All done in the name of stability. Placing the federal government in the precarious situation of balancing the interests of the Natives and settlers. Otherwise, the demise of the young republic may have been inevitable.

Fast-forwarding approximately a century, it clear there has been a long-established that many Caucasian Americans perceived tribal people as more of an obstacle than their indigenous neighbors. Making these individuals the proverbial bootleggers of the Dawes Act. Why?  What do the Americans vying with the Natives for land have to gain from this law?  The act was enacted in the absence of any consent requirements (p.21). Making it easy for the federal government to divide up the land without any tribal input.  To get the legislation to pass the law was amended to allow whites to purchase any remaining land. The result of the law being a drastic decrease in land ownership among tribal people. (p.21). Even worst, the land was not distributed in a manner that was logical to the needs of farming and grazing. Creating a  “checkerboard” pattern of “alternating white and tribal-owned land”. Making it impossible to utilize the land for grazing or farming (p.22).

 In the end, putting aside any good intentions, this policy only made matters worse. The policy not only was poorly implemented but was manipulated to benefit non-tribal members. Legislative rent-seeking at its finest!  Only provides further evidence that quite often all the downstream repercussions of regulations can rarely be considered. For a policy originally intended to lift Native Americans out of poverty did the exact opposite! Making this abject policy failure a shining example of what is referred to in the public policy as a cobra-effect. The Dawes Act only further deteriorated the economic quality of life of America’s Native people.  

Unlawful Assembly and The Limits of Free speech

city group people police
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

 

 

 

 

My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”
― Christopher Hitchens

 

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
― James Madison

 

 

There is a fine line separating protected speech from destructive behavior. Many onlookers have questioned the efficacy of peaceful demonstration (see comment below the article).  After all,  in the tragic death of George Floyd, the government has violated its contract to the people. In a Lockean sense, we exchange unfettered freedom for state protection of our rights. This theoretically voluntary arrangement is undermined when state power takes primacy over contractual  fulfillment. Outrage is certainly warranted. Especially when those who have sworn to protect this social contract are the ones benefiting from the institutional loopholes. However, what is the appropriate course of action?

 

Qualified Immunity has protected scrupulous police officers from being accountable for their transgressions.  Putting into question whether America still holds its founding ethos of Classical Liberalism in high-esteem.  If public officials can violate our rights with little to no repercussions, our experiment has failed.  Giving credence to all of the subterfuge and rent-seeking behavior that distinguishes Public Choice Theory.  We as a society pay the cost for the few that benefit from this privileged legal status. We pay for it through the sacrifice of our civil liberties. Demonstrating the concept of “concentrated benefits and dispersed costs“.  In some instances, we require protection from our designated protectors. Creating an atmosphere of pessimism and incredulity. Amounting skepticism of justice and equality under the law in the United States. Leading the most disenfranchised Americans to resort to violent demonstrations. If the microphone or the pen does not convey your point, maybe the sword will.

 

That is not to say that all of the protests in reaction to the murder of George Floyd have been violent. I applaud my own community of Maricopa, Arizona for keeping demonstrations civil. Unfortunately, that can’t be said for every community.  Every community should keep their conduct civil. Despite the violence perpetrated by state actors. Why?  Because looting and wanton vandalism is not a vocalization of injustice. Its a deterioration of civilization. It is an erosion of the informal norms and values that keep our passions in order. It merely victimizes innocent parties. The business owner that had their store looted did not participate explicitly or implicitly in killing Mr. Floyd. How is this action even remotely connected to the issue at hand? Or even justifiable?  It isn’t. Sure, there are probably proverbial “bootleggers” hiding under the moral guise of demonstrating against police brutality. Creating the perfect pretext for taking advantage of the situation.  There are those on the side of the “baptists” who believe the use of force is justifiable, even when directed at uninvolved third-parties.

 

Destroying private property in protest is not justifiable. If anything it mirrors the same folly of police brutality. Both are property rights violations. Hence, why crimes against person and property are often parceled together. This is far from a novel concept in Libertarian thought. Many proponents of a natural rights approach have already made this observation. We as autonomous actors are owners of ourselves. In turn, we own our bodies. As slavery has long since been abolished. An adult of normal intellectual capacity possess self-ownership. Meaning they can choose what they ingest, read, listen, and so on. Involuntary and undue harm induced by injurious actions taken by a second actor is a clear property rights violation. While more of a peripheral violation, the destruction of a storefront is nevertheless a similar transgression. In other action, you are depriving the elementary freedoms of the individual. However, the property rights pertaining to “self-ownership” takes primacy.

 

Putting aside these abstract philosophical tenets, violent protest is not justifiable under current law.  The First Amendment of the  U.S. Constitution is not absolute and does have a number of notable exceptions.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

For instance, the use of  “fighting words” is not protected speech under the First amendment.  This legal term was defined in the case Chaplinski V. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).  This excludes words mean to incite violence or other forms of unrest. The Arizona chapter of the ACLU has a running list of varieties of prohibited speech. There are a number of well-defined restrictions when it comes to protesting demonstrations.  Which includes civil disobedience, any dangerous actions, obstructing roadways without a permit, harassment, or interference with private property.  Violation of any detailed criterion will make the demonstration an unlawful assembly.

The statues explicitly pertaining to unlawful assembly and riots in Arizona state law include the following.

ARS 13-2902:

A. A person commits unlawful assembly by:

1. Assembling with two or more other persons with the intent to engage in conduct constituting a riot as defined in section 13-2903; or

2. Being present at an assembly of two or more other persons who are engaged in or who have the readily apparent intent to engage in conduct constituting a riot as defined in section 13-2903 and knowingly remaining there and refusing to obey an official order to disperse.

B. Unlawful assembly is a class 1 misdemeanor.

 

ARS 13-2903:

A. A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which disturbs the public peace.

B. Riot is a class 5 felony.

 

Both laws are quite clear on the defining parameters of acceptable forms of protest. Neither statue condones the destruction of private property. Individuals who were not involved in incidents of police brutality should not be punished by the fallout of violent demonstrations. I should note that not all of the protests have been violent. I fully acknowledge this point. Any instance of violent protests is unacceptable. Mirroring the fact that police officers using excessive force to subdue a suspect is never permissible. Either action violates the natural rights of the victim. The Non-Aggression Principle asserts that we should not inflict undue harm on others any such action is inherently transgressive. However, this philosophical tenant does not apply to self-defense. The only circumstances under which violent actions are ethical is in self-defense or defense of your property. Under any other contingency, you are the one at fault.

 

Please note that I am equally repulsed by the abuse of police power as I am by the violent protests.  I would surmise are not as prevalent as the media portrays.

 

There are also examples of police officers assaulting peaceful protestors.

The Man of System- The Folly of Planning

war chess
Photo by Gladson Xavier on Pexels.com

Planning on an intuitive level always appears to be the most logical course of action. If we could only harness the same methodical rigor of a physics experiment, we could all live in the blessed light of “reason”. Few of a scientific disposition stop to question if there are certain aspects of life we shouldn’t attempt to control. In their haughty hubris, the proponents of planning bumptiously trudge forward. In full faith that they can implement the next pivotal stage of progress in the history of man. For those who pray at the altar of pure reason, such oversights are a consequence of believing that they possess more knowledge than it is possible to know. A point clearly elaborated on by Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek decades prior to 2019. Most notably in his seminal book The Road to Serfdom published at the tail end of World War II, an era when the debate about economic planning was raging.

 

Even when we are armed a plethora of empirically verified statistics and data planners are still merely guessing. Often guessing with information collected under idyllic experimental conditions. Conditions that are meticulously controlled and don’t account for the invariability of a natural environment. An environment that is more constrained by natural law than by experimental controls. While science has brought forth the advantages of modern medicine and technological advances, there are specific areas where its breadth of knowledge is insufficient or inappropriate. Social engineering and economic matters being sublime examples.

 

If such measures could bring about a utopian society it would have already been implemented. Attempting to subvert the effects of the law of Supply and Demand through price-fixing and subsidizes will invariably fall flat. Regardless of their intentions, the central planners will always fail. Venezuela’s financial woes spiraled out of control after a subsequent chain of ill-fated interventions initiated by artificially manipulating oil prices. However, Venezuela is merely a drop in the bucket, such measures have backfired on just about every country that has entertained similar policies. It starts to become quite salient that when immutable laws are violated the ramifications can be disastrous. This premise isn’t merely regulated to economic law, but all forms of natural law. The intellectuals, bureaucrats, technocrats, and other authority figures rank among men foolish enough to attempt to undermine static and enduring.

 

The sin of such arrogance is far from a new pathology of the human condition and has proven to be quite a pervasive vice. From the dawn of civilization to the Middle ages gout-ridden men reeking of entitlement and excess felt their privileged station was anointed by the will of God. Making them immune to the conventions and morals that bound common men. While monogamy was imperative for the butcher, baker, and the brewer; the king had his court filled with concubines. The king not only felt he was above moral convention, but that of natural law. After all, he is literally a step away from being a deity in his own right. Many medieval rulers in an attempt to keep wealth within their own national boundaries implemented highly protectionist policies. Composited policies that reflect the economic system known as Mercantilism. Which erroneously disregarded just about every basic economic law we hold in high regard.

 

At the apogee of the Scottish Enlightenment, there was one man who saw the folly in the lofty assumption of central planners. He was also an outspoken critic of Mercantilism, that man was the moral philosopher Adam Smith. He expounds upon this phenomena in his 1759 book  The Theory of Moral Sentiments in the personified construct dubbed “The Man of System”:

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder. (Page 212, para 2)

 

The king believes he can circumvent the will of his subjects and impose import tariffs that will encourage them to buy domestic goods. By virtue of natural law, purchasing cheaper imported goods does not constitute theft or assault, but rather a byproduct of free will. Due to the tariffs being legitimate in the eyes of the royal subjects an expansive smuggling ring is formulated. Illegally importing untaxed goods into the kingdom. People are not chess pieces, nor are they objects. They possess free will (or the illusion of such), an individual set of morals, and the capacity for subjective attributions. It is faulty to surmise that people can be treated as pawns when social law and their own volition will most likely hamper any attempts at planning.

 

It becomes truly horrifying when individuals believe they can legislate morality. The abject failures of alcohol and drug prohibition provide sufficient insight into the shortcomings of such endeavors. Utopia does not exist on planet Earth. The nature of man is imperfect and is incapable of mimicking the pristine deportment of cherubs. We are not saints, no amount of legislation or penalities can correct for this deficit. This not intended to provide immunity for the murder, rapist, or thief. However, they have transgressed against a higher moral code making their actions universally reviled. While the moral indiscretions of the prostitute, the drug addict, and the bookie are not universally seen as wrong.  In the sense that they are victimless crimes. More of a passive acquiescence than an endorsement.

It isn’t natural law that decrees the need for punitive measures for such conduct, but government fiat. This is where we cross the line into legal positivism. An action is either moral or immoral purely on the basis of legislative command. A Pentagon directed bombing campaign that kills innocent civilians was justifiable. A convenience store owner shooting a burglar that is attempting to rob his establishment at gunpoint is a civil infraction. Considering the gross insensitivity to property rights and higher moral values can we truly trust  ” The Man of System” (bureaucrat, legislator, etc.) to codify morality in a self-serving legal system? The prison unions have a storied history of lobbying against the legalization of Marijuana. Who is to say that many of our petty laws exist purely for justifying the existence of a task force or bureaucratic department?

 

It isn’t merely just the conservative Christian or the “law-and-order” types that can assume the proverbial role as “The Man of System”.  The progressive left-wingers have also utilized the government apparatus to legally impose their own brand of  “morality”. Any form of government funded safety-net or subsistence program is a legal attempt at evening the odds for the economically disadvantaged. While it is fair to disagree or agree with such policies, the real line of demarcation is when initiatives to criminalize intolerance are suggested. Most of these policy suggestions amount to compelled speech laws. If certain speech is deemed as hateful it must not be tolerated. To such an extent that there are legal repercussions for using “hate speech”.  As outlandish as it may sound you need to look no further than Bill C-16 passed in Canada to see the ultimate outcome of such ill-advised policies. Implement such sanctions against our speech is purely an assault on the principle of free speech. Even criminalizing the right to be a member of a hate group tramples upon the relished right to free association. If either right is nullified by legislative constraints you are an inch away from living in a dictatorship.

 

These legislative crusaders may be well-intentioned they are willfully ignorant of human nature. Much how you cannot legislate Judeo-Christain values into the psyche of an individual the same holds true for the virtues of social justice. Despite what you do, intolerance will never be completely relinquished as long as humans walk the Earth. The human mind is glutted with biases that push many to favor individuals that are similar to themselves. Similar to themselves in a shared language, values, religion, political identity, ethnic identity, national identity, sexual identity, etc. Considering these proclivities for tribal behavior it becomes quite conspicuous that tolerance is merely another incurably ill of mankind. Sure you may be able to enlighten individuals of the errors in their thinking, but not on any kind of grand level.  Intolerance dies on the same day that man longer yearns for a pint of beer, a dose of opium, and no longer lusts for a voluptuous misteress. Anyone convinced otherwise is profoundly mistaken.

 

I am still perplexed by people who unquestionably trust the judgment and authority of those who insist upon controlling the lives of others. Politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals, judges among others. All of these individuals are human and none are infallible. All are cable of sin, all are subject to psychological biases, and other influences that would make them biased.Why is the law contrived and fabricated by these purported experts superior to the “golden rule”? Holding the authority of mortal men in such a high degree operates as a perverse form of deification.  Their credentials and education are what separate them from ordinary people. That is it. There aren’t any further qualifying factors that make these individuals morally superior to common folks. In most cases, laws don’t even make us any safer or product our property rights. Most laws if anything is hostile to our property rights. Leaving it reasonable to question, why are lawmakers incentivized to legislate such grotesque sanctions against some of our most basic rights?