25. marraskuuta 2009

3. Does law constitute a condition of, or an obstacle against, liberty?

The answer to this question depens on the definition of liberty. Perhaps the easiest definition would be being able to do whatever you want. In this case any laws or restrictions are naturally obstacles, since they tell us not to do things we might want to do. Driving very fast or taking new clothes for free would be fun, so why can the law say it’s not allowed? This kind of extreme individualism says that a person’s choises should be unlimited, but what if someone chooses to shoot everyone he sees?

The big problem with this definition of liberty is the lack of safety. When anyone can do whatever he wishes, nothing guarantees that someone doesn’t want to come and kill me. That kind of liberty is actually very restricting. Everyone would have to watch their backs and living peacefully would be an impossibility. Thomas Hobbes said in the 17th century that we need to give away our power and do as the ruler sais to avoid this kind of situation. Nowadays it is the law instead of a person. The difference is that now we can contradict and change the laws, whereas in Hobbes’ vision any rebelling against the ruler is highly forbidden.

Another definition of liberty is the freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn’t restrict other people’s same freedom. From this point of view for example taxes are not such a good thing. And every paternalist law is totally unnecessery. It doesn’t harm others if I don’t use a seatbelt. In fact, if people would live by this rule, we wouldn’t need laws. But there is always someone who doesn’t care about rules and chooses to ignore other people’s freedom, and there will always be disagreement about where is the line between expressing your own freedom and restricting the freedom of others. And there we need laws. 

According to John Locke, society must guarantee our basic rights: life, freedom and property. This is possible only if there are some rules everyone has to follow. These rules, known as the law, take some choises and possibilities away from us, but in return we can live safely. I think it is more liberating to know that nobody is going to punch me in the street than being allowed to punch anyone I want to.

Unlimited liberty is never possible, nature takes care of that. We will always have to eat, sleep and die. Liberty in society is another thing. To me liberty means freedom to live my life as I like, and I want to live it safely, which would be quite difficult in a society where there would be no laws. So I would say that laws are needed to have as much liberty as possible.