"The two great masses of the thinking world are ever ranged on the one side or the other, supporters of authority, believers in liberty." - Auberon Herbert
We can suppose no other object to be placed before ourselves but
happiness, though we may differently interpret the word, in a higher or
in a lower sense. We are then entitled to pursue happiness in that way
in which it can be shown we are most likely to find it, and as each man
can be the only judge of his own happiness, it follows that each man
must be left free so to exercise his faculties and so to direct his
energies as he may think fittest to produce happiness;—with one most
important limitation, which must always be understood as accompanying
the liberty of which I speak. His freedom in this pursuit of happiness
must not interfere with the exactly corresponding freedom of others.
Neither by force nor by fraud may he restrain the same free use of
faculties enjoyed by every other man. This then, the widest possible
liberty, is the great primary law on which all human intercourse must be
founded if it is to be happy, peaceful, and progressive. Perfect
obedience to it will produce constant advance in our capabilities for
happiness, in our feelings of kindliness and good will toward each
other, in our intellectual acquisitions. Just as I believe this to be
the master-principle of good in human affairs, so do I believe that old
desire which is so firmly planted in the breasts of men—the desire to
exercise force over each other—to be the master-principle of evil. Where
liberty is to be bounded by liberty, it is necessary for us to define
liberty and to restrain all aggressions upon it. In this one case force
acquires its true sanction, that of being employed in the immediate
defense of liberty, but except in this case physical force has no place
or part in civilized life, and represents the antiprogressive power that
still exists amongst us. If this principle be true—and I believe that
the more it is examined and subjected to attacks, the more clearly will
it be seen to be true—then how sure and how simple is the guide which we
possess in political life, and how mischievous though well intentioned
are all those efforts of the reformer or the philanthropist who believes
in his own special method of coercion and restraint, and has never
learned to believe in the all-healing method of liberty. I do not ask
that the principle of liberty should be accepted by any man until he has
most carefully and most anxiously viewed it in its every bearing, and
has examined every group of political facts with the purpose of
ascertaining whether mischievous results, like in kind, do not, sooner
or later, follow wherever there is a neglect or contempt of liberty. If
the principle be true we shall be able, with increasing knowledge and
better methods of examination, to vindicate it at every point. Of all
the serious steps in life, that is the most serious when a man chooses
the guiding principle of his actions. I think, therefore, we ought to
search out for ourselves and to listen to all that can be said against
the principle of liberty. Let us hear all the counter evidence possible
before we finally exalt it as our rule and guide, though, perhaps, when
we have once done so, we shall be as much inclined to smile when it is
impatiently proposed to disregard it for the sake of some passing evil,
as the Astronomer Royal would be if some new group of facts were to be
hastily explained in disregard of the influence of gravitation. Nor must
we assign to liberty qualities which it does not possess, and which, if
we were in a mood of unreasoning enthusiasm to attribute to it, would
only lead to our disappointment. Like other great beneficent forces in
nature, such as natural selection, there is a sternness in it, and its
direct effects are often accompanied with pain. It is, as I believe, the
great all-healer, but healing must sometimes be a painful process.
Now let me point out to you that we have not arrived simply at an
abstract result, but that this question of liberty as against force will
be found to enter into all the great questions of the day. It is the
only one real and permanent dividing line between opinions. Whatever
party names we may give ourselves, this is the question always waiting
for an answer, Do you believe in force and authority, or do you believe
in liberty? Hesitations, inconsistencies there may be—men shading off
from each side into that third party which in critical and decisive
times has become a proverb of weakness—but the two great masses of the
thinking world are ever ranged on the one side or the other, supporters
of authority, believers in liberty.
What, then, is the creed of liberty, and to what, in accepting it,
are we committed? We have seen that there exists a great primary right
that as men are placed here for happiness (we need not dispute as to the
meaning of the term), so each man must be held to be the judge of his
own happiness. No man, or body of men, has the right to wrest this
judgment away from their fellow man. It is impossible to deny this, for
no man can have rights over another man unless he first have rights over
himself. He cannot possess the right to direct the happiness of another
man, unless he possess rights to direct his own happiness: and if we
grant him the latter right, this is at once fatal to the former right.
Indeed to deny this right, or to abridge anything from it, is to reduce
the moral world to complete disorder. Deny this right and you have no
foundation left for rights of any kind—for justice, political freedom,
or political equality—you have established the reign of force, and
whatever gloss of civilization you may place over it, you have brought
men once more to the “good old plan” on which our fathers stood.
This I believe to be the plain truth. There is this one strong simple
foundation, or there is nothing. We may accustom our minds to Houses of
Parliament, to majorities in the House, or majorities in the nation; we
may talk our political jargon and push forward our party schemes, but
this great truth remains unaltered through all our sayings and doings.
It is true that here, as elsewhere in nature, we may live in disregard
of the law, but here, as elsewhere, there is no escape from the
consequences. All the partialities and privileges—all the bitter
envyings and hostilities which exist amongst us—all the craving for
power—all the painful unrest and blind efforts—all the wild and
dangerous remedies—all the clinging to old forms, and the want of faith
and courage to choose the new—all these will be found in an ultimate
analysis to be amongst the consequences—and serious enough they are—of
not recognizing and obeying the law on which our intercourse with each
other is founded.-Excerpt from "The Choices Between Personal Freedom and State Protection" via Libertarianism.org
No comments:
Post a Comment
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.