The Ideal of Right Law

Despite the preponderance of self-interest throughout our history, the pursuit of "Right Law" and the ideal of some ultimate universality has claimed the attention of political thinkers and writers since early Greek and Roman times.

"I find that it has been the opinion of the wisest men that Law is not a product of Human thought, nor is it any enactment of peoples, but something eternal which rules the whole Universe by its wisdom. Reason has always existed, derived from the Nature of the Universe, urging men to right conduct and diverting them from wrong-doing; and this Reason did not first become Law when it was written down, but when it first came into existence; and it came into existence simultaneously with the Divine Mind."

These principles were expressed by the Roman philosopher Cicero in The Republic. While such ideals can be traced yet further back to the early Greek political philosophers, it was the Romans and Cicero in particular who gave to the Greek doctrine of Natural Law a statement in which it was to become universally known throughout Western Europe down to the Nineteenth Century.

Cicero continues: "There is in fact a true Law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands it summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. To invalidate this Law by Human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissable ever to restrict its operation; and to annul it wholly is impossible."

Particularly important here is the assumed distinction between the fundamental laws of nature which are a product of the Divine Mind, and man-made laws. Man-made laws should ideally reflect Natural Law; if they do not, they are in Cicero's view, worthless.

George H. Sabine (A History Of Political Theory) comments:

"None of the great Roman jurists doubted that there is a higher law than the enactments of any particular State. Like Cicero they conceived of the law as ultimately rational, universal, unchangeable, and divine, at least in respect to the main principles of right and justice. The Roman Law, like the English Common Law, was only in small part a product of legislation. Hence the presumption was never made that law expresses nothing but the will of a competent legislative body, which is an idea of quite recent origin. It was assumed that "nature" sets certain norms which [government's] law must live up to as best it can and that, as Cicero had believed, an "unlawful" statute simply is not law."

The essence of Natural Law is that the Ruler, the State or the Legislator is always subject to the Law of God, or the Moral or Natural Law, the Higher Rule of Right which transcends Human interests and Human institutions. Thus the Ruler or Legislator becomes an interpreter of a Higher Law, rather than an instigator or originator of law reflecting perhaps the interests and profit of himself or the group he represents.

This general principle of government - that authority is justified only on moral grounds - may appear somewhat alien today. But it achieved almost universal acceptance within a comparatively short time after Cicero and remained a commonplace of political philosophy throughout the Middle Ages, becoming a part of the common heritage of political ideas.

The concept of Natural Law was fundamental to the political philosophy of Henry Bracton whose written comments after the Magna Carta have already been quoted. Bracton particularly stressed that the King must "be under God and the Law", by which may be understood the "Natural Law" or Right Reason.

Following this same tradition Sir Edward Coke attempted to impose the discipline of "Right Law" upon the Acts of Parliament in the early 1600s.

Coke became Attorney General in 1594 and retained this Elizabethan appointment until 1606, when King James made him Chief Justice of Common Pleas and later, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, a post he retained until 1616.

Before beginning a new career as a Member of the House of Commons in 1620, Coke devoted himself to writing his Reports and Institutes which became the basis of legal education in England and America throughout the 1700s.

As a student, Coke began to trace the medieval origins of Common Law, collecting ancient precedents that later filled the volumes appearing under the title The Institutes of the Laws of England and the Reports of Sir Edward Coke Kt. in English in Thirteen Parts Compleat. While preserving the Common Law's continuity he reinterpreted it in his own way, reaffirming the "Natural Law" element and defending it against all encroachments.

In his opinion given in Dr. Bonhams Case (1610), Coke declared: "when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void."

The ideal of subjecting law-makers to procedures of conduct and to basic concepts of "common right or reason" persisted after Coke's death in the turbulent years of revolution. A political reform group active during the Civil War years of the 1640s later known as the Levellers, held that Parliament itself should be bound by certain "fundamental laws" assuring for example religious liberty and forbidding military conscription.

This attempted triumph of "right" over Electoral or Parliamentary "might" was not destined to become a permanent feature of English legislative discipline or procedure. Perhaps this was because the "Common Right or Reason" had not been, and indeed still has not been clearly defined. But such concepts would later inspire in the new United States of America the idea of codifying the essential procedures, safeguards and liberties gradually assembled over the centuries into one single written Constitution.

The first written Constitutions were motivated by two then-current political theories: Social Contract and Natural Law.

The "Social Contract" element reflected the principle that government is established as a result of a compact in which individuals promise to accept the judgements of a common arbiter. An important implication is that, having put their trust and political destiny in the hands of a Central Government, the People are thereby entitled to expect from that Government justice, honesty and competence.

And since it is all of the people who are subject to law, not only those who have voted for the specific Party for the time being in office, it follows that there is a presumed obligation upon any Party in power to act in the overall national interest, avoiding solutions favouring specific sectional interests.

Though this ideal may be difficult to define, it has nonetheless been possible to limit Government from practising the grosser extremes of natural in-justice; this is achieved through the Constitution, the function of which is to set out the specific terms of this "social contract" including the procedures, obligations and limitations to which Government should be subject.

The "Natural Law" element in Constitutions gave them the sanctity of a Higher Law.

"The modern Constitutional State at the time of its origins was justified and to a large extent legitimatized in terms of Natural Law theory. While the ancient idea of a divinely inspired, immutable, eternal Natural Law had been secularized by the Seventeenth Century it still provided a source of permanence in an ever unstable world.

"John Locke used Natural Law to support the natural rights of the individual, thus limiting the powers of Government. The written Constitutions which followed Locke's philosophy embodied such traditional natural rights in detailed provisions."

[Constitutions That Have Made History: Blaustein and Sigler, Paragon House, New York, 1988].

Despite their growing commitment to "rule by the people" - or more accurately, the majority of the people - the Framers of the United States Constitution were under no delusions that Democracy of itself could be relied upon to guarantee good laws.

In an attempt to preserve discipline and integrity in government the Framers provided a clear and concise Constitution creating a system in which several branches of Government share power, yet limit that power through a series of checks and balances.

But even this was not enough. Many of the Framers felt that Liberty should be more specifically defined and protected. Among them was Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who argued that the Constitution as it stood directly after its adoption would "put Civil Liberty and happiness of the people at the mercy of Rulers who may possess the great unguarded powers given.";

He demanded such amendments "as will give security to the just rights of Human nature, and better secure from injury the discordant interests of the different parts of this Union."; The result was the first ten Amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights which set specific bounds on the range and extent of Law.

The significance of the Bill of Rights, as with similar Constitutional limitations on Government activity, lies in the recognition of a Higher Law endowing mankind with certain fundamental rights and liberties to which even elected Parliaments must defer.

Acceptance of a higher, Natural Law requires that "... the Legislator who formulates laws is a Priest of Justice, the practitioner of a true philosophy, not a pretender to an imitation. Natural Law meant interpretation in the light of such conceptions as equality before the Law, faithfulness to engagements, fair dealing or equity."

[George H. Sabine: A History Of Political Theory].

A modern exponent of "Just Law," Rudolf Stammler [The Theory of Justice, 1925], regarded this belief in Natural Law as the crowning glory of Roman jurisprudence:

"This, in my opinion, is the universal significance of the classical Roman jurists; this, their permanent worth. They had the courage to raise their glance from the ordinary questions of the day to the whole. And in reflecting on the narrow status of the particular case, they directed their thoughts to the guiding star of all law, namely the realization of justice in life."

Following the Industrial Revolution and the growing complexity of regulatory detail, legislators and political philosophers gradually abandoned any attempt to focus on "the guiding star of all Law", concentrating instead on "the ordinary questions of the day".

But it was not, nor ever has been simply a matter of concentrating on detail at the expense of overall strategy; in fact the "opponent" of Natural Law was not and is not detail, but self-interest.

The concept of Natural Law is essentially a reflection of that universal-interest which seeks benefit, peace and stability for all. This can be achieved when the Law identifies and prevents infringement of liberty, rather than perpetuating it.

Throughout our history we pursued the alternative path, that of self-interest, where individuals seek to improve their own lives at the expense of others, supporting Governments and Laws which promote that objective. This resulted in slavery and feudalism, revolution and civil war, the riches and poverty of the industrial revolution, and the revenge of Socialism, the whole continuing saga symbolized in the polarization of Right and Left, each side representing a particular class or sectional self-interest.

The marked difference between Right and Left, and with it the whole concept of self-interest-motivated, confrontational politics, was not destined to last. Both Party policies, of the Right and of the Left, were class-oriented, designed to further the interests of one class, if necessary at the expense of the other.

The attraction of such policies was bound to fade as class differences disappeared, and as people gradually came to the more civilized view that the Laws directing our social conduct should promote the liberty and wellbeing of all the people, not some at the expense of others.

Thus we return to the fundamental principles of "Natural Law" expounded by early Greeks and Romans, the "Common Right or Reason" of Coke, that "Higher Rule of Right which transcends Human choice and Human institution".


Liberty and the Principle of Non-Imposition

The traditional concept of a universal guiding principle, a "Right Law" to which Legislators and Legislation are subservient, is many centuries old. That we did not formally identify the essence of "Right" or Universal Law was most probably due to the fact that "we" both in and out of Government and Parliament were more interested in seeking personal rather than universal benefit. The basis of New Age Governance returns to this fundamental issue.

In our everyday lives, in personal relationships, in our use of natural resources, in our business and commercial affairs, it is possible for some to gain benefit at the expense of others. This is the essential feature of political conflict.

Our response to potential conflict is reflected in personal conduct, and in the Governments we choose or accept. Either we choose, and our Laws permit us, to continue injuring, exploiting and imposing on one another so that some may gain wealth through the impoverishment of others; or we attempt to avoid, and our Laws identify and prevent, those actions which are harmful or injurious to others so that we can all live in peace, harmony and maximum liberty.

One is the path of imposition; the other is the path of non-imposition and cooperation.

For two thousand years we have taken the path of imposition, during which time that path has been explored through the full range of slavery, feudalism, exploitation, civil wars, and the confrontation of sectional interests. New Age Governance is founded on non-imposition, cooperation and the maximization of the general liberty.

When we begin to seek fair rules by which we can live together and collaborate productively without exploiting one another, we will find that the true nature of "Right Law", of universal liberty, is and always has been clear and straightforward, awaiting only Human recognition and acceptance.

It exists inside every one of us, for we all know what is right and wrong in social conduct - if we ever bother to ask ourselves. It exists as the fundamental basis of English Common Law; and it has been expressed by political thinkers, writers and philosophers for thousands of years.

This is the Eternal Law of Right Social Conduct: that each should pursue his or her own advancement, but in ways which respect the right of others to do likewise; that each should seek his or her own growth, but in ways which do not diminish others.

If we then seek to apply this principle of universal-interest in Government, we find that the guiding policy is clear and simple: the purpose of Government and Law is the identification and prevention of exploitation, harm or injury between people.

This guiding Principle has already been expressed in many forms through the centuries; it is expressed clearly and concisely in the words of Thomas Jefferson: the purpose of Government is to prevent men from injuring one another.

This proposition has implications far beyond its apparent simplicity.

Clearly, Jefferson was not confining injury to grievous bodily harm, any more than he was confining the term men to the male gender. The purpose of Government in this view is to prevent people from injuring one another, and injury can take many forms which grow in number and complexity as the world develops.

One can harm one's fellow citizens by making and selling a machine which is unsafe in use; or through incorrect labelling of a food product which results in a user consuming an additive to which he or she is strongly allergic.

There are many ways in which we can injure one another, in our personal activities, in commerce and industry, in our use (or misuse) of natural resources. In Jefferson's view it is Government's job to identify and define those actions leading to the injury of others, then to prevent them through appropriate Laws and Enforcement.

Thomas Jefferson was not inventing a new idea.

He was taking his place in a long line of political theorists and idealists from early Greeks, through Cicero, Bracton and Coke; he shared the same principles with his colleagues as Framers of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and he was handing on a continuing tradition of fundamental rightness with which we are all, in our consciences, familiar.

Most people of the Anglo legal tradition (Britain, the United States and many Commonwealth countries) have always objected in principle to any excess of regulation. We dislike meddlesome government; we find unnecessary regulation tiresome and annoying; we abhor oppressive government. Yet few would object to being told they may not do something, if it can be clearly shown that their action is in some way harmful or detrimental to others. And when a person is suffering injury at the hands of another, we would all accept that person's right to remedy and protection in law.

The idea is well summarized by one of the leading figures in British justice, Lord Denning, in his book The Family Story: "Each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the same."

This view of Law as the prevention of injury between people reflects the fundamental limitation of social freedom. We cannot all have absolute freedom in our social relationships with one another. If one person is totally free to do whatever he likes, he is by definition free to limit or indeed eliminate the freedom of another, thereby reducing that second freedom possibly to zero.

The best we can do is to maximize freedom, and this we achieve when we all accept certain limitations on our individual freedoms so that we do not infringe the freedom of others.

To describe this concept of shared, limited freedom we use the word of Latin-Roman origin: Liberty.

A Land of Liberty is not a land in which we all have absolute freedom to do exactly as we please. That would be a land of anarchy, since everyone would be free to limit, or eliminate the freedom of anyone else.

A Land of Liberty is a land in which we are all subject to some restraint in those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, so that we can all enjoy not absolute, but a measure of Liberty. In this way, the general Liberty can be maximized.

Without the Rule of Law people would be free to injure one another in the widest possible sense, each attempting to enhance his or her own personal wealth and possessions through the dispossession of others. This is Anarchy.

The remedy is the kind of Government visualized by Jefferson and Lord Denning, Government which exists specifically to prevent people from doing those things which are injurious, harmful or detrimental to one another.

When Government as referee identifies those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, then prevents such actions by Law and its enforcement, Government is limiting individual freedom; but in so doing it creates the conditions in which the general overall Liberty is maximized.

The Principle of "freedom up to, but not beyond the point where freedom infringes another freedom" is the Eternal Law of social conduct, the fundamental Principle of Non-Imposition instinctively familiar to us all.

When this Principle is observed by citizens and applied by laws, Liberty is maximized, and laws enjoy the guidance of a Principle which fully reflects the age-old ideals of Natural Law, of non-injury, of respect, justice and fair dealings between people.

The Principle of Non-Imposition requires in our personal relationships, in business and commerce, and in our use of natural resources, that we respect others as if they were ourselves, that we respect others as we would have others respect us. It will be recognized at once by anyone familiar with the Sermon on the Mount.

The Principle of Non-Imposition may also be seen as an accurate reflection of the age-old ideal of "Natural Law", the "Common Right or Reason". It is universal rather than sectional in its approach and objectives; when accurately, honestly and consistently applied it seeks to maximize the general liberty for all rather than enhancing the wellbeing of some at the expense of others.

Only in Liberty will the flower of Civilization unfold. And Liberty, true and full liberty, will be achieved only when all of the people understand, accept, and support with full knowledge and conviction the Principle that in the enjoyment of liberty each must respect, never infringe the liberty of others.

Liberty and Government Intervention

The Principle of Non-Imposition is an ideal. It is an expression of Human social conscience, of our fundamental sense of right and wrong in our dealings with others. It reflects the ancient concepts of Natural Law and English Common Law. It is the path of universal-interest.

But the Principle of Non-Imposition can also be defined with considerable accuracy.

We have observed that throughout most of our political history Government has pursued a policy of laisser-faire or minimal intervention in the affairs of society, thus permitting those with superior forces of personality, intelligence and wealth to increase their wellbeing by diminishing that of others.

Insufficient Government intervention permits citizens to harm and exploit one another. That is the essence of Right Wing Conservatism. Under this Regime freedom is increased for some but decreased for others; hence the overall Liberty is not maximized.

The Socialist reaction gave Government, or the State, considerably greater powers of intervention designed to help the poor by preventing exploitation and readjusting the balance of wealth.

But excessive Government initiates exploitation and oppression by the State. That is the essence of Left Wing Socialism. Under this regime Liberty is increased by Government protection, but it is then decreased as Government goes further and creates oppression. Again, Liberty is not maximized.

Liberty is maximized when Government offers full protection, but without moving into oppression.

It thus becomes clear that the significant factor in Government policy, and the Liberty it produces, is the Degree of Government Intervention.

The Degree of Government Intervention can be shown as a simple straight-line scale, calibrated from Zero to One Hundred Percent.

Let us first establish the two "extremes" at each end of the scale.

At one end of the Scale we have Zero Percent Government Intervention, which means that Government quite simply does nothing at all. Government is to all intents and purposes non-existent. The result is anarchy in its pure sense of being without leader. In this condition everyone is free to do whatever they like; but this also includes the freedom to limit or eliminate the freedom of others. Freedom can be absolute, or it can be nothing, depending on your strength, skill, cunning, or luck! Liberty, in the sense of a disciplined freedom resulting in a safe and ordered society, could not be said to exist under this regime.

At the other end of the Scale we have One Hundred Percent Government Intervention. Here we find total Government control over every aspect of life. This is the kind of environment visualized by authors such as Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, who attempted to highlight the dangers of allowing Government to become oppressive. Here we find ourselves in the sinister world of Total Control, of citizens directed in their every move and every thought by an ever-watchful Big Brother.

These two positions provide clear end-points as reference positions.

While there is little current example of zero Government, many of the ex-Socialist-bloc countries now have a degree of Government which in the confusion following perestroika may be considered seriously deficient, resulting in black markets, widespread corruption, and the control of production and commerce in the cities moving from the State into the hands of mafia-style gangs. It might well appear to the citizens of Russia's major cities that Government Intervention is almost at Zero.

More familiar to Western countries is the Low Degree of, say, a nominal 25% Government Intervention. This is represented by the term Laisser-faire, meaning literally "let people get on with it".

The first exponent of Laisser-faire was Francis Quesnay, Physician to Louis XV, who came to the conclusion that government was a necessary evil which should interfere as little as possible with individual freedom.

The pioneering thought of Quesnay was developed into one of the most powerful doctrines in the history of ideas by Adam Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, whose work The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776) became the gospel of the "System of National Liberty" for the next century in European and American thought.

Familiar with the works of Quesnay, Smith built a more solid basis for his attack on government, updated now to reflect the shift of emphasis from land to industry which was concurrently unfolding.

Smith held that the source of a nation's wealth is labour. The increase in a nation's wealth therefore depends on making labour more efficient, which is achieved by enhancing the investment of capital, developing specialization and mass production, and promoting the free flow of goods and materials in international trade.

To give full play to this complicated but natural and vital operation, the whole process must remain free from artificial restrictions of government.

This thesis was undoubtedly proposed as a constructive scientific-economic blueprint for the general growth, welfare and benefit of society as a whole, and in theory at least it is difficult to argue against it.

But in production and commerce, as in all aspects of inter-human relationships, there is always opportunity for infringement of liberty, for some to gain through others' loss.

And as the Industrial Revolution unfolded it would become clear that infringement of liberty in industry could be taken to, and indeed well beyond, levels which were unacceptable to anyone with knowledge and a modicum of social conscience.

Though Adam Smith saw benefit for all, in practice it would be the owners of capital, production equipment and factory premises who would benefit, to the detriment and impoverishment of those in the weaker position: their employees, the ex-hand-weavers now displaced by machines and clamoring for work at any price to ward off starvation. Women and children were paid a meagre wage for long hours of concentrated work tending the machines which were dangerous, unguarded, and caused frequent accidents for which there was neither care nor compensation.

And the Law was predictably slow to act in their defence. The bankers, investors and industrialists, being either in power or influential in the formulation of Government policy, naturally supported a system which gave them a free rein to take advantage of their superior position. Laisser-faire for them was every bit as rewarding as Adam Smith had promised.

But at the same time it was becoming clear to reformers both in and out of Parliament that while accepting the basic doctrine of Liberty, an increase in Government Intervention was necessary to protect workers and improve their lot.

The movement for reform by legislation in England began with the Factory Acts which between 1833 and 1845 succeeded in limiting the work of children under eleven years of age to nine hours a day and of women to twelve hours. These Acts prohibited the employment of children in mines, and for the first time provided general rules for the health and safety of all workers.

So it was that Government Intervention began steadily to increase, with the justifiable aim of eliminating some of the more blatant opportunities for citizen to infringe the liberties of fellow citizen.

But the pace of reform was too slow for the newly awakening, increasingly organized and educated working classes. And the pendulum of Government Intervention was to swing over to the other extreme: to Socialism and Communism which represented a much higher degree of Intervention than most reformers would ever have visualized.

Under Socialism and Communism we enter the higher realms of Government Intervention, say a nominal 75%, where an increase in the power of Government and the State is actively pursued.

"Place everything in the hands of the State", the Socialists urged, "and the State will take good care of us all".

Set against the Victorian backdrop of widespread poverty, ignorance, ill-health and malnutrition, coupled with a concurrently growing sense of conscience and the need for reform, Socialism appeared to offer the answer. Only a few there were who could foresee the implications of high and ever-increasing State Control.

One such visionary was Herbert Spencer, who in 1884 wrote:

"There is an increasing tendency for administrative compulsion and restraints. The increasing power of the State is accompanied by a de-creasing power of the rest of society to resist its further growth and control.

"The multiplication of careers opened by a developing bureaucracy tempts members of the classes who regulate it to favour its extension, as adding to the chances of safe and respectable employment for their relatives.

"The people at large, led to look on benefits received through public agencies as gratis benefits, have their hopes continually excited by the prospects of more.

"Thus influences of various kinds conspire to increase State action and decrease individual action. The numerous Socialistic changes already made by Act of Parliament, joined with the numerous others about to be made, will soon be all merged in State-socialism, swallowed in the vast wave which they have little by little raised."

Spencer's words have proved prophetically correct in the light, not only of State oppression in the Soviet Union, but also of attitudes, demands, high taxes and budget deficits in the West.

Nations and their Governments create three kinds of political environment: enslavement, oppression and liberty.

Enslavement, exploitation and imposition result from a Low Degree of Government Intervention, or Laisser-faire, which permits infringement of liberty by citizens.

Oppression, Government intrusion and State takeover of business results from a High Degree of Government Intervention, or Socialism-Communism, which creates infringement of liberty by Government.

And where can we find Liberty?

Certainly not at Zero Percent Government Intervention. At Zero Percent Intervention there is no protection of Liberty whatsoever.

So we move away from this condition of lawlessness, proceeding up the Intervention Scale. As we do so a gradual increase in Government Intervention provides basic law, order and personal safety, followed as we progress further up the scale by more sophisticated forms of protection such as consumer, employee and environmental protection.

How far should we continue to increase intervention?

The Right-wing definition of Liberty as "minimum Government Intervention" has always been a powerful argument, enhanced today in the light of both the experience and the demise of Soviet Socialism. Just as innocence until proved guilty is a cornerstone of the English judicial tradition, so too does the Anglo-American concept of Law recognize what may be called Presumption of Liberty, the concept that we should all be free unless there is a very good reason for the law to limit that freedom.

And what constitutes a "very good reason" for the law to limit freedom? Another very old-established precept of English Common Law provides an answer: it is entirely reasonable for the law to limit or to forbid an action if that action is harmful to others.

So we continue to increase intervention gradually until we reach the point at which there is sufficient Government Intervention to ensure full protection of each and every individual's liberty from infringement by others in any way. This point is the halfway mark on the Scale, represented by 50% Government Intervention. Under a regime of 50% Government Intervention there would be no opportunity whatsoever for one individual or class or group to harm or enslave or to infringe the liberty of any others.

At this point we have achieved one "side" of liberty. As we make the final move from 49% to the 50% mark, we have succeeded in eliminating all infringement of liberty by defending the citizen against any and all forms of injury or imposition by other citizens.

But now we must guard against going any further, which would lead us into oppression.

We have already defined the 50% mark as being the precise degree of Government Intervention necessary to prevent any and all infringements of liberty between citizens. So if we increase intervention any further Government can only begin producing laws which are not strictly in the protection of liberty, and are therefore intrusive and oppressive.

As Government Intervention increases beyond 50% a progressive reduction of liberty immediately begins; its effects are painful, and lead ultimately to total oppression. Yet it is an easy road to take.

The dream of "total care" by a benevolent Government, though impossible to attain, is nonetheless tempting. And the movement from 50% to higher and ever higher degrees of intervention in people's personal lives can begin all too easily with laws "for our own good". But secretive Government, oppressive laws, excessive industrial regulation and dictatorial land-use planning will soon begin to develop.

Under a policy of 50% Intervention, Government prevents individuals from imposing their will and judgements upon one another, but initiates no imposition through Government excess.

50% Government Intervention neither permits nor creates Infringement of Liberty. Government intervenes promptly when, but only when the law is required to protect a clearly identifiable infringement of liberty.

If there is any opportunity for any citizen to infringe the liberty of any other citizen, if any citizen suffers infringement of liberty to any degree or in any way at the hands of any other citizen, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 49% or some lower degree of intervention.

Government is permitting a degree of enslavement.

On the other hand, 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 51% or some higher degree of intervention.

Government is initiating some degree of oppression.

The ability to define the seemingly diverse elements and options of anarchy, enslavement and oppression, of laisser-faire and Socialism-Communism, of Right and Left on the single common scale of Government Intervention allows us to define Liberty very precisely.

Liberty is maximized when the degree of Government Intervention is 50%: no less, and no more.

At 50% Intervention there is no infringement of liberty either by citizen or by the State; there is neither enslavement nor oppression; the general liberty is maximized.

At 50% Intervention, the Principle of Non-Imposition is fully and accurately reflected.

The Degree of Government Intervention necessary to maximize liberty can thus be identified with a precision which any citizen can readily comprehend, and when necessary, defend.

If any man, any woman, acquires or is granted power over any other or others, this will – not may, but will most surely and certainly – lead to abuse, misuse and corruption.

The only Power that is competent and can be trusted to regulate the affairs of community and society is the Power of Principle, the Principle that in the pursuit of self-improvement and the exercise of liberty, no-one should injure or exploit others.

This Principle of Non-Imposition is neutral and impersonal. It is a shield, protecting from injury, preventing injury.

Legislators hold no arbitrary or discretionary power. They are simply Interpreters, applying the Principle in terms of everyday events and actions. The process of Interpretation is clearly delineated and circumscribed. If there is Injury, there must be Protection. If there is no Injury, then there is neither cause nor justification for the interference of law.

Return to index page