Unlike our constitution, Turkey’s makes a succinct statement with which all private South African citizens would agree – “Every Turk is born free and lives free. He has liberty to do anything which does not harm other persons. The natural right of the individual to liberty is limited only by the liberties enjoyed by his fellow citizens.” Invariably, however, government representatives are often less persuaded of the paramount importance of individual liberty.
Regulation by the state reduces our individual freedom of action to handle ourselves and our property as we each see fit. It can be seen as a form of partial expropriation of our self-control into state control. There is no apparent limit to governmental regulation of our private behaviours. Whatever the majority democratic government of the day sees fit to regulate for ideological or populist reasons, it can regulate.
Government can constrain smoking in private homes and restaurants, prevent parents from enrolling six-year-olds in grade 1 at private schools, and restrict or ban private sale and use of fireworks, dagga and guns. If it wants to keep extending its control into ever more such areas of (arguably) harmless private action, is there any limit to the process?
Two points suggest themselves: Firstly, the formal mechanism of appealing to the Constitutional Court may lead to some specific limit being imposed on state encroachment. South Africa’s Court was appointed by the government, but there is no reason to suppose it will take the country down the three-century American path from individual liberty to huge central and regulating government. The latter, of course, is what we inherited from the Nats and already have, but it may not last. On the contrary, and despite various discriminatory ‘social justice’ provisions in the constitution, we can hope that the Court will gradually enforce Bill-of-Rights freedoms and ‘roll back’ the state. But this will take time and effort.
Secondly, but more immediately, informal processes of popular choice will continue. Until the state does its primary job properly and greatly reduces the frequency of real crimes against people and property, it can expect little thinking support for its preventive and redistributive interferences. So, and quite correctly, government largely neglects victimless behaviours involving everything from smoking to seatbelts, fireworks to dagga, and smuggling to prostitution. The occasional high-profile pursuit of a few ‘perpetrators’ mainly prompts healthy public discussion of ‘what on earth they think they’re up to’ when burning perlemoen, harassing immigrants, seizing assets, jailing speedsters, crushing weapons, or closing restaurants.
State regulation of behaviour – misguided ‘social engineering’ – has to be approached primarily by legal and administrative measures, rather than by conversion and self-sacrificing self-discipline. People simply do not appreciate being bossed around. When they are, they become less free and more resentful. They wish, as Kant would have put it had he written in English, ‘to be respected in their pursuit of their own chosen ends’.
The Romans said ‘nemo me impune lacessit’, and the Scots ‘oh wha daur meddle wi’ me’. Nowadays we talk of doing our own thing, and minding one’s own business. Mr Asmal can keep his six-year-old child out of school, Mr Salojee can refrain from smoking, and Mr Omar can stick to unwarranted speed limits. They should extend the same courtesy of choice to the rest of us.
Source: Dr Jim Harris is a freelance researcher and journalist. He maintains the Privatisation Update which appears under Publications on this website.
