Liberty and the harm principle

Hi, I’m Geoff Pynn, and I teach philosophy at Elgin Community College. In this video, I’m going to talk about the idea of Liberalism. At least since the French Revolution, politics has been seen as a fight between liberals on the left and conservatives on the right. But in most modern states, all mainstream political parties agree that the protection and promotion of liberty is one of the state’s fundamental jobs. This idea is known as liberalism. The US Declaration of Independence lists liberty as one of the three “inalienable rights” all of us share. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man asserts that “human beings are and remain born free and equal in rights.” And the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights echoes the French Declaration almost verbatim. Liberals think that any legitimate state must respect its citizens' liberty. Since most laws restrict people’s freedom in some way, in a liberal state, laws have to meet a high standard to be justified. What gives the state the right to infringe people’s liberty, when everybody has the moral right to be free? The English liberal John Stuart Mill thought that the only thing that can justify forcibly coercing someone was preventing harm to others. Harming others violates their liberty, so a liberal state would have an interest in preventing you from doing so, and generally speaking, your freedom doesn’t include the freedom to harm others. So laws that prevent you from harming others can advance the cause of liberty without violating your own. But imagine what a state would be like if its laws really respected the Harm Principle. Many existing laws would be very difficult to justify this way. For example, in most places it’s illegal to walk around naked in public. But does this really prevent harm to others? Or consider laws against gambling, sex work, or drug possession.These activities do carry some risk of harm to others,but so do many activities that liberal states generally permit, such as making a risky investment, driving to work, or drinking alcohol. Far more people die every year from alcohol-related causes than from all other drugs combined. But few liberals would argue for a return to prohibition. Or consider taxation. When the state imposes a tax, it takes your money, by force if necessary, whether you like it or not, in order to pay for other things. Some government spending prevents harm. But a lot of it doesn’t seem to -- or, at least, it doesn’t seem like harm prevention is what justifies it. Public schools, government research, national parks, mail delivery… Few people would defend these expensive government functions simply by saying that they prevent harm. Rather, many laws are about decency, morality, and the common good, -- not about preventing harm. It’s indecent to walk around naked in public -- that’s why it’s illegal. Gambling, paying for sex, and using hard drugs are widely regarded as immoral -- and that’s the main reason there is so much support for keeping them illegal. Education, science, and art advance the common good -- and that’s why states use tax dollars to fund them. Strict adherence to the Harm Principle would undermine any law justified on these grounds. Some liberal philosophers, known as libertarians, embrace this radical idea. They argue that the state shouldn’t be in the business of promoting decency, morality, or the common good. They think public health, city parks, and universal education are probably illegitimate uses for our tax dollars. Some libertarians compare taxation itself to forced labor, a profound violation of liberty. And without tax revenue, government would grind to a halt. Most liberals aren’t that radical. In fact, in contemporary politics, the word “liberal” is often used to refer to someone who favors more government intervention, for example to protect the environment, improve literacy, or promote equality. Isn’t it conservatives who want less government intervention? If liberals are really all about protecting and promoting liberty it's hard to see how these initiatives are truly liberal. But there are different ways of thinking about what liberty means. Consider education. It may not be quite true to say that knowledge is power. But it’s plausible that ignorance limits your liberty. Someone who doesn’t know which mushrooms are poisonous doesn’t have the freedom to enjoy mushrooms they’ve gathered themselves. Someone who does know this has a freedom her ignorant friend lacks. If you want to promote liberty, making sure people are educated seems like a good way to do it. So maybe the cause of promoting liberty is about more than just protecting the freedoms you already have. Maybe it’s also about expanding the freedoms available to you. Could a law that infringes your liberty but increases the liberty of others be justified? Or does the Harm Principle mark out the inviolable boundary of the liberal state? What do you think?