Congratulations to Garret Ean of Concord on his first prize winning essay of the 2008 NH Liberty Essay Contest! For his winning essay, Garret has been awarded $150. Garret’s essay is reproduced in full below:

Liberty: The Balance of Peace and Justice

In working with government and public service organizations, I consider no greater task one can undertake than the spread and promotion of individual liberty. As humans, we grow up naturally believing that we are the center of the universe, since perception dictates that only what we see, feel, and experience are conditions of the world around us. To begin thinking philosophically, one can break away from this inherent egoism and acknowledge the aspirations and dreams of others. Taking these factors into consideration, we can realize that the only just way managing society is to allow individuals to manage themselves.

The reason granting individual liberty is the only just way of choosing to ‘manage’ people is because by forming associations and setting guidelines for others to live by, one is claiming moral superiority to others. This presumed moral authority is only based on the current state of affairs, being that the dominant opinion maintains the majority’s support, or at least the lack of overt majority disapproval. History shows us that majority opinions change often and radically. Sociology shows us that humans tend to do that which is popular in the face of what is morally just. While all humans have natural prejudices and opinions on matters of use of force, to acknowledge the inability to properly use force leads one to the decision to not force a desired outcome, but rather grant uncoerced free will to one’s fellow man in the hopes that the favor will be returned when the tables have turned. Using government for the reasons by which it was established, laws could be written to ensure liberty is preserved, such as guidelines to follow when a member of society violates the rights of another by causing intentional direct harm.

It is easy to be led astray in the defense of liberty, even when entering into a situation with the best of intentions. For example, ongoing medical studies have proven without a doubt that prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke, for example, is a cause of serious disease. Considering this information, and the other positive and negative consequences of engaging in cigarette smoking, a pragmatic would chose not to smoke cigarettes. Going further in their own moral self-fulfillment, one may also look for ways to get others to experience the clearly more beneficial lifestyle of the non-smoker. There are dozens of methods available to a citizen interested in curbing the habits of another. Unfortunately, with a legitimized organization of force, people often resort to encouraging the use of force to do any number of things that could be done in a peaceful manner. Rather than restraining themselves to govern that which they have clear natural authority over, which includes themselves, their property, and their children, majorities form to crush minorities.

The inherent flaw in this line of thinking and reasoning is in the fact that force is necessary to stomp out minorities. Governments are set up, and laws are perceived social contracts among people, rules by which we expect to mutually abide by. By using the social contracts designed to protect us to divide us, we have done something oxymoronic, and created a force which would not have existed naturally, thus, caused violence which would not have occurred using peaceful, non-forceful ways of coexisting. The simple measure of justice for a law of man can be determined by weighing this fact: Does a law harm offenders in a way greater than they the harm they have caused others?

This ideological thinking dismisses all crimes without direct harm to a victim, as majority rule is only concerned with implementing direct harm retaliation when force is used. However, it is not inappropriate for those who share a concern for liberty to support an act to create an offense without a victim.

Negligence is an example of an offense in which there is no direct victim, but a violation of a social contract has occurred. Individuals may argue over what specific obligations a person has, but certain tasks are naturally expected. An interesting example of negligence can be found in drunken driving statutes. Although the most liberty-oriented method of traffic management involves routes that are privately funded and policed, while roads are shared, it is expected that the drivers around you are capable of operating their motor vehicle in a matter that will not offend those around them. For this reason, if a driver is clearly impaired, and has given reason for a reasonable person to conclude they are incapable of maintaining relative safety on the road, it would not be unjustified to restrict that person from operating until they are in a sober state. The unfortunate thing about enforcement of these natural laws is that they often become perverted through legalistic definitions, such as government establishing a set limit of alcohol intake which defines someone as intoxicated without proving the original factors of the violation, specifically an inability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Unjust punishments are also often established, which do not match the violation in question.

Considering the interactions of society, it is not a violation of natural rights to establish a standard contract of interaction by which members of society may chose to follow, but it is destructive to society to use unjustified force to ensure that these contracts are followed mandatorily. If we wish to have the ultimate peaceful, prosperous, and just society, we must be ever aware of the ways in which we deprive individuals of liberty and ensure that force is only used in reaction to prior force, not preemptively out of fear of society’s minorities.