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
favours; 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 seat-belts; 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 feels
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 favours.  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 behaviour.  We must make a choice: either a free but 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