We have just discussed the idea that the purpose of Law is to protect. It therefore follows that Legislation is not Law. Legislation is an interference. It takes away Freedom. It empowers the minions of The State. It is an instrument of social control – and is therefore the prime instrument of Socialism, which seeks to perform “social engineering.” All the schemes of social engineers are effected through Legislation.
If you want to study this idea further, I suggest Bruno Leoni’s “Freedom and The Law.” This book influenced Friedrich Hayek, whose “Law, Legislation and Liberty” broke new ground, as compared to his earlier work, “The Constitution of Liberty,” a book that Margaret Thatcher swore by.
The future of freedom, which we aspire to, can only be achieved if we restrict Legislation to where it justly belongs: and that is, the regulation of the arms of the government. Legislation should cover the tax bureaus, the police, the civilian administration. This is the “public law.”
The citizenry are therefore free from Legislation. They inhabit the “private law” world of Property, Contracts and Torts. These fall within “civil law” and require no legislation.
Of these, it is Private Property that is the sole guarantor of Liberty. When Legislation cannot interfere with Private Property, when Property is inviolable, we are all Totally Free. Let us proceed with a few examples:
=> Take the dance bars of Bombay, closed down by legislative fiat. If Property is inviolable, then the bar is the Property of the owner or lessee; the girls dancing are Proprietors of their own bodies; and the customers have temporary property rights by paying for the right of admission. If this example is followed through, X-rated films and theatres showing such films are free. As are adult magazines. As are casinos.
=> The farmer, who owns his fields, is also free to grow ganja, or charas, or opium, or coca – and he can sell these to merchants. These then become the Property of the merchants, who sell them to users, who own their bodies, and who also own the drugs they want to consume. No legislator – and hence no crooked policeman – can interfere.
I invite my reader to think things through for himself. He will discover that anything and everything will be totally legit as long as Property cannot be violated by Legislation.
I will offer the example of immigration restrictions imposed by legislative fiat. These too can be seen as violative of Property. If I buy a house (or even rent a hotel room) in the US, Europe, Canada or Australia, then I have a right to occupy my Property and the immigration official at the airport should not be able to deny me this right.
Thus, if we want Liberty Under Law, we must put Legislation where it belongs – the “public law.”
And we must uphold our claims to Private Property – which should be inviolable, immune to legislative interference.
This is the secret to a lasting Liberty.
Thought I would point you to
ReplyDeletehttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Bloggers-can-be-nailed-for-views/articleshow/4178823.cms
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/24/1831207
Question with regards to ownership/proprietership of body. When does a child becomes an adult (or gain ownership of body). Till then who has the ownership of the child?
ReplyDeletePraveen: Today, the "date of maturity" is entirely arbitrary. You can drive at 16, vote at 18, marry at 21, and buy alcohol at 25, and so on. Murray Rothbard discusses the libertarian solution to this arbitrariness in "The Ethics of Liberty," where he says that anyone who has the means to sustain himself should be considered an adult, irrespective of his age. This can apply to "child stars" - as, for example, the children who starred in "Slumdog Millionaire" or the various child actors, singers, dancers and models who earn plenty despite their tender age. And as for marriage and sex: the human body shows its signs of sexual maturity on its own. This should be the "natural law" in this context.
ReplyDeleteSauvik,
ReplyDeleteInteresting thought, but what about the ownership of child, till he becomes and adult (ie, sustain himself).
Also wouldnt this definition leaving the kids open to abuse?
Praveen: The Law that comes from the past (like the "common law" or the "sharia") concerns itself with recurring relationships, as between a tenant and landlord, a debtor and a creditor, and, most importantly, between a guardian and his ward.
ReplyDeleteThe last concerns itself with abuse, either of the child, or the properties of the child, which he cannot control till the age of legal maturity.
That is, The Law attempts to PROTECT the interests of the ward, till the age of maturity.
There is no real problem here. I do not think that, through the ages, the ward has been exploited by his guardian, because The Law did not offer sufficient protection.