I have only a month and a half until I leave Virginia to go traveling, and that trip will be recounted, though at a different site and in a different format from that used here; as soon as it goes online, in the next couple weeks, I’ll post a link. But given that this site will be usurped by the trip blog for the next year, and given that the trip will hopefully be followed by a few years of grad school which I will no doubt find extremely busy, I think this may be the final post of substance to be found here. I’ve had this website, in some form, for 8 years, or nearly one-third of my life. And this period has been the one where I’ve begun to learn properly about life; to put the time period in perspective, take a look at the young 16 year old gent below:

My hair used to be pretty blonde come summertime, right? Of anything, though, I’ve learned the most about, and thought the most about, liberty. But what of happiness and love and other goods things in life, Kev? All I can say is I’m not bold enough to claim to know the source of all of my preferences! And given that my thoughts have so often turned to liberty, the proper relation of the individual to society, I feel this potential final post must turn to that subject.Extending JS Mill a bit, there have basically been three periods in human history. The first, extending from pre-history through the Age of Kings, involved powerful men and women issuing rules by dictat, with little concept of individual rights. If the prince didn’t like broccoli, he could ban it, and that would be that. Even in the Steppe, all but the most isolated individuals had their choices bound the most physically strong among them.

In the second period, perhaps best characterized by the Magna Carta, individuals demanded some form of protection from the whims of Kings, deciding that a government of the people was best. But this self-government was not, as Mill has noted, the government of the self by the self, but the government of the self by others, the government of the self by the majority. This form of government is still predominant in non-dictatorships worldwide. But a government whose actions are not constrained - that is, a government that can act as a tyrannical majority - offers no liberty at all.

The third period, the one I hope to see continue to spread worldwide, holds when Isaiah Berlin’s “negative liberty” is strong. Negative liberty is the ability to do whatever your mind and body are able to do; it is infringed when another person coercively stops you from taking such action. In the US tradition, “natural rights” is more or less the same as negative liberty. (This is opposed to the positive liberty to do things that require the help of another to do, but are still an “inherent right” - think of FDR’s “freedom from hunger”. A French philosopher noted the difference: “It is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale.” I see very little usefulness in the positive definition of liberty.)

Without natural rights, we essentially cede to 50.1% of the population the ability to do what they like to the other near-half of the population. And on what grounds? Often, the argument is made on the grounds of some sort of social contract, the grounds that an individual, by choosing not to leave a society, implicitly consents to this agreement. The argument is that if society desires something, if the greater good can be achieved somehow, that the preferences of some individuals can be ignored.

As far as I’m concerned, the most natural source of “good” and “bad” comes from the preferences of individuals. Some call this “utility”, but it is a very broad form of utility, one which makes no restrictions or judgments or claims about why an individual might prefer something. Individuals desire things and take actions because individuals have hopes and dreams, fears and wishes, loves and hatreds. A society has none of these. Societies do not think, they do not want, they do not hurt. Claims that society is better off because of some action conceal the individuals who are made better and who are made worse. The hope is that those who are made worse will consent if they are doing it for society, instead of for other individuals.

There are questions where the interactions between individuals make it difficult to parse whether government action is just or not - is the man calling for government action harmed by the action of another, or does he merely dislike it? Indeed, that question itself may be difficult to define. But in general, liberty demands that we err on the side of limiting government. Governments through history, I think it is clear, have been far more likely to err on the opposite side; we see far more gulags that we do anarchies. The easy questions make it easier to spot those who believe in liberty and those who do not.

Should the government coerce adults to wear seatbelts? Should the government be able to transfer property among individuals at whim? Should the government restrict you from taking medicines with a high level of risky side effects? Should the government be allowed to restrict what you say if it is false and it offends others? Should the government be able to restrict what you say if it is true and it offends others? Liberty says no. Many politicians, and many individuals, say yes. One has to look no further than the annual flag-burning amendments in the US, or, more worryingly, cases like the Maclean’s case in Canada. In that case, a magazine is being forced to pay a fine and apologize because a cover story about the growing Islamic population in Canada was considered offensive to society.

I don’t ask for you to agree with my preference toward greater and greater liberty. I only ask that you recognize, when you go to vote, which politicians run for office in order to impose their preferences on you, and which run in order to expand your ability to achieve your goals free of the meddling of others. This liberty we have is a rare and precious thing in human history, and we must not let it slide away without a fight.