                 A Defense of the Freedom to be Left Alone
                             BAD Broadside #4

         We live in an invasive society. Our freedom to peacefully lead our
     lives as we please is severely restricted by laws, rules, and
     regulations instituted by governments of all sorts and their
     supporters among the populace. We are subject to a huge number of
     laws, among which are laws that: outlaw certain forms of consensual
     sex; ban public nudity; restrict the sale or production of sexually
     explicit books and films; criminalize the sale of sexual favors;
     prohibit ownership of handguns; require us to get notes from a
     physician to buy certain medicines; prevent us from seeking the
     assistance of another in ending our own lives; fine us for not wearing
     seatbelts; and attempt to prevent us from using the recreational drugs
     of our choice. Why do people tolerate such a level of government
     interference in their personal lives? Because they have been convinced
     that individuals and society need to be protected from the
     consequences of "bad" choices people might make if they were left
     alone.

         Governments presume that they know better what is good for others
     than do those people themselves. These rulers seem to think that when
     other people make choices that they consider unwise, unhealthy, or
     immoral, those people are misbehaving because they are either
     uninformed, stupid, or physically, psychologically, or morally
     diseased. The state then feel justified in stepping in to prevent the
     "unenlightened" from harming themselves. These busybodies fail to see
     that other people can freely choose to engage in activities of which
     they disapprove.

         People like different things and have different ideas about how to
     lead their lives. Some prefer heterosex, some homosex, some both, some
     neither. Some like coffee and cigarettes, others vodka and cocaine.
     Some prefer to have physicians tell them how to stay or get healthy
     and what medicines to take, others would prefer non-medical healers or
     wish to make their own choice about what drugs they wish to use. Some
     choose to engage in sex for free, while others are willing to pay for
     or sell sexual favors. These activities are the result of freely made
     choices and no one is affected by any of them except the individuals
     who voluntarily engage in them. Therefore, they should not be the
     business of anyone but the participants and should not be interfered
     with by others.

         People sometimes engage in activities that are potentially harmful
     to them because the pleasure or benefit they derive or hope to derive
     from the activity is more important to them than the actual or
     potential harm the activity may cause them. People smoke tobacco
     despite the increase in lung cancer and emphysema risk associated with
     it because of the pleasure they get from smoking. Some people engage
     in sexual activity, like cocksucking without condoms, which carries
     some risk of causing HIV infection, because the sexual pleasure they
     obtain is worth the small risk of being infected and perhaps
     developing AIDS. Such choices should be left entirely up to the
     individual, since no one else is harmed. We should be free to live our
     lives as we please, even if we make some decisions that turn out to
     have been unwise.

         Some voluntary activities are prohibited or regulated because they
     have the potential to involve others involuntarily. Since guns can be
     used to kill others, the argument is made that gun ownership should be
     regulated to prevent possible harm to others. Some harmed by guns
     deserve to be harmed, as when gun owners are defending themselves or
     their property, but sometimes innocent others are harmed by gun
     owners. The fact that non-invasive people are sometimes injured or
     killed when guns are freely available, however, does not justify
     restricting their availability. Non-coercive people are also sometimes
     hurt or die in car accidents, but few, if any, advocate banning cars
     for this reason. Just because a gun or car can be misused to hurt
     someone who has not injured the owner does not justify banning it.

         Supporters of interventionist governments would argue that no or
     little risk is acceptable in society. However, the problem with this
     outlook is that lowering risk means restricting freedom. A society
     that values freedom will necessarily be a society which allows people
     the freedom to engage in risky behavior. We must make a choice: either
     a free, somewhat risky world, or a safe and secure, but stifling and
     unfree one.

         Politicians of all political tendencies, rightists and leftists
     alike, support government intervention in other people's lives.
     Conservatives and conventional liberals may be more crass and open
     about their interventionism, but they hold no monopoly on it. The
     socialist left is perfectly willing to interfere with the affairs of
     others, and the socialist states have an even worse record than the
     united states when it comes to restrictions on individual freedom.
     Few leftists criticize the prescription system or laws against
     recreational drug use, for instance, and the socialist states are 
     notorious for persecuting people who engage in homosexual sex.

         No government of any sort, no matter what its size or political
     orientation, will leave people alone. The nature and mission of
     government is to interfere with free individuals and tell them how
     they should live their lives. We will only be truly and completely
     free when people finally decide that they can live better and more
     freely without any government and begin the process of building a
     stateless society.

                               NO COPYRIGHT

               Please send two copies of any review or reprint
                       of all or part of this to:

                     Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade
                               (BAD Brigade)
                                PO Box 1323
                            Cambridge, MA 02238

                     Internet: bbrigade@world.std.com

                               November 1991
