Libertarianism V Authoritarianism
Uploaded by
matthew WilliamsLibertarianism V Authoritarianism
Uploaded by
matthew WilliamsAUTHORITARIANISM vs LIBERTARIANISM
Do we need so many laws to regulate our behaviour? If we didn't have as many laws, would society
really descend into chaos? In the UK, we live in an AUTHORITARIAN society: we have laws that prohibit
certain behaviours (eg, murder), make certain behaviours mandatory (eg, wearing a seatbelt), and
protect against possible harms (eg driving whilst under the influence of drugs / alcohol). Under the
authority of the state, our behaviour is 'hemmed in' by criminal laws.
However, in his essay 'On Liberty', John Stuart Mill claims that over himself, his own body and his mind,
an individual is sovereign. In other words, a person ought to be free to do what they want unless their
actions cause harm to someone else. This is usually referred to as the 'Harm Principle'. It continues to
be important and influential in the way people regard the role of the State in governing an individual's
behaviour.
Perhaps the best place to start is with this claim by Mill. Mill argues that I should be able to act as I
please, as long as I do not inflict harm on others in doing so. Following this, Mill (and contemporary
Libertarians today) would argue that smoking, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, maiming myself, and c
ommitting suicide should all be allowed (so long as they are done in the privacy of my own home - there
is an argument against doing these things in public as they may cause harm to vulnerable or
impressionable people like children). Let's begin by investigating some of the claims made by
Libertarians or Authoritarians:
People be free to harm themselves if they wish to. (LIB)
It is tempting to say 'Yes, of course they should' in response to this statement. However, is it ever
really possible to act in a way that will not affect someone else? The pain caused to my family if I
should die as a result of drug or alcohol addiction, the cost to society if I should need medical
attention as a result of maiming myself and the poor person who makes the grisly discovery if I
should succeed in taking my own life, etc, etc. All of these suggest that I cannot harm myself
without harming others - within a society, we do not live in such isolation.
In addition, can we trust that the person who is choosing to harm themselves is doing so entirely of
their own volition? People who abuse drugs and alcohol, who maim themselves, and who are
suicidal are can rarely be said to have a balanced mind, or to have reached that decision after
careful consideration. We therefore have a duty to protect vulnerable individuals from actions that
would cause them harm. These are points that come up time and time again in the debate over the
legalisation of voluntary euthanasia. However, if I am not sovereign over my self, my body and my
mind, then who is? The State?
Unless there are laws to restrict certain actions, people will behave in an immoral way. (AUTH)
This is an argument commonly put forward by Authoritarians against the Libertarian view. In other
words, if wearing seatbelts was not mandatory, people would not bother. Or, indeed if taking heroin
was not illegal, more people would become addicted. But is this true? I like to think that the reason I
buckle up is because I recognise how dangerous driving a car is and I want to protect myself.
Similarly, I don't take heroin because I don't want to become an addict. The reason I have never
murdered anyone is not because I don't want to go to prison, but because I think taking a life is
morally wrong. Therefore, I might say that I don't need laws to dictate my behaviour. But can this be
said to be true of everybody? Is it naive to think that society can be trusted to behave in a moral
way, rather than simply to obey the law?
If there is no victim, then no crime has been committed. (LIB)
This is a kind of inverted interpretation of the saying "there is no such thing as a victimless
crime" - without a victim, someone who suffers as a result of the action, then no crime has
been committed. This would mean that laws which prevent against possible harms are not
necessary, eg- wearing a seatbelt. If I drive my car without wearing my seatbelt then I am
breaking the law, regardless of whether I crash or not. Similarly, if I drive my car whilst under
the influence of alcohol or drugs I am also breaking the law, regardless of whether I crash or
not. A libertarian would say such laws contravene my liberty - I have done nothing wrong if I do
not harm anyone else.
It is often along these lines that some people may argue in favour of legalising Prostitution. If
sex takes place between two consenting adults, then there is no victim and therefore no crime
has been committed. However, can it really be said that a prostitute consents to sex if it is
being paid for? the 'Belle Du Jour high class escort' type of prostitute may defend their choice
of job and say that they have the freedom to pick and choose their clients as they wish
however, the 'drug dependant, stand on street corner' type of prostitute almost certainly does
not.
If it's legal it's good; if it's illegal, it's wrong. (AUTH)
The final issue at stake is to determine whether it is possible, or preferable, to distinguish
between The Law and our own Moral Code . In other words, should we align the two and say
that if something is legal, it is good, and if something is illegal it is wrong? This would be the
Authoritarian view and it may appeal on the basis of its simplicity. However, it would mean
that legalising something is akin to morally approving of it. It is not currently illegal to drink a
couple of bottles of whisky in the privacy of my living room, nor to drop a cat out of my
bedroom window, nor to have an affair. However I definitely do not approve of doing any of
these things. There is a temptation with the Authoritarian view that we can sit back and 'let the
law sort it out' whereas perhaps we ought to keep some moral autonomy and responsibility for
ourselves.
Activity:
1. What would a Libertarain say about the following behaviours? (would they want laws to impose / restrict them?)
Explain your answer.
a. Paedophilia / watching child porn on the internet
b. Wearing a seatbelt whilst driving a car
c. Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
d. Wearing a crash helmet when riding a bike.
e. Smoking cannabis.
f. Having a affair.
2. “Unless we have to laws to restrict behaviour, society would descend into chaos” Do you agree? Explain your answer and
show you have thought about more than one point of view.