Freedom and litter

We have a site, as many of you know, called Orphans of Liberty and it says it has a range of views, from libertarian to centre-right, including classical liberals. Somewhere in there is room for the true conservative.

The question over “do as thou wilt” is to ask why that’s also regarded as the satanist maxim and why  the “dark side” would see such a maxim as efficacious? In our society today, it’s pretty clear to see. When a person knows no personal constraint whatever, then his moral fibre weakens – just ask Anakin Skywalker. Hence the overreaction to slights, road rage, rape, anything which would hinder his desire to do something.

Yes, “don’t you dare impinge on me” produces individuals but not individuals as we’d like to be around and this then becomes, not an issue of liberty but an issue of respect for others. Hence the classical liberal position of freedom, as long as it doesn’t harm/impinge on others.

As this can’t be socially engineered but has to find its happy medium, then it will, by definition, be weighted towards freedom, as enshrined in the American constitution.

There needs to be some middle position, weighted towards liberty, as just said and yet recognizing the need for self-constraint, with the education system built around such a framework of mores, e.g. our loosely based Judaeo-Christianity, to ensure some form of protection whilst still ensuring personal freedom, yet without the need for the State wading in.

In that system will always be the uncontrolled and those who’ll impose on others so what is done about them? In a truly free system, I’d pick up my shotgun and deal with it that way.

Into that comes this:

Drivers face £80 fines for any litter thrown from their vehicle, even if it was a passenger who threw it

Council zoning regulations are weighted towards the beauty of the countryside and harmony of the buildings [even though most building is an eyesore these days]. Yet it restricts freedom and imposes unnecessary costs on the taxpayer.

What of litter? Nearly every schoolkid, at some stage, has been presented with this by teachers as an issue to discuss, so what’s the solution? Should there be no fine at all, should there be anything called a fine in the first place, should the fine be steep for wilfully uglifying [itself an ugly word] our surroundings?

Or are we, in our libertarian cocoon, happy to wade through the dog ordure and cigarette butts, polystyrene food remains and spittle on the path, in order to satisfy the test of freedom?

I draw no conclusions.

10 comments for “Freedom and litter

  1. May 8, 2011 at 7:01 am

    Surely this sort of legislation was intended for the commercial or bulk fly-tipper, not for a motorist tossing a fag-end or crisp packet out of the window?

    • May 8, 2011 at 7:06 am

      Julia, on the surface, like the whole plethora of legislation which has become the fashion, possibly because those imposing it see their godgiven role as interfering in our lives and socially engineering us, the stated purpose is and should be as you say but I contend that it then pretty quickly deteriorates into what they really want – just to keep us in line, to keep us within their PCist vision of how the UK should be run.

    • Lord T
      May 8, 2011 at 10:18 am

      Julia,

      That is the process by which they snare the dozy.

      We must do this to stop this. We all agree. Oops. The law we made also covers this wide range but that is the law. Not up to us.

      So they make a law that is aimed at fly tippers but as there is no amount of rubbish specified, a childs sweet, an apple core, a fag end, all biodegradable but classed as waste counts. Book em Danno, another £80 for the tax hole to keep us fed. Anyway they have cars so can clearly afford it unlike some hoody.

  2. May 8, 2011 at 7:04 am

    “The question over “do as thou wilt” is to ask why that’s also regarded as the satanist maxim…”

    That’s the oft-misquoted (and misunderstood) Crowley maxim. I’ve always preferred the Wiccan creed: An’ it harm none, do as thou wilt…

    • May 8, 2011 at 7:07 am

      People supporting this site vary from the “no state interference” to the “minimal state”, which is the classical liberalism I’m closest to, as can be seen in the post. I think we’re all agreed the state should butt out of the social legislation field and many contend it should also butt out of how the economy runs. Basically, we’d like to be treated as grown-ups, if that’s not too much trouble and that all the state ever is and should be is a set of admins who run the day to day business each of us can’t.

  3. May 8, 2011 at 7:05 am

    Julia, on the surface, like the whole plethora of legislation which has become the fashion, possibly because those imposing it see their godgiven role as interfering in our lives and socially engineering us, the stated purpose is and should be as you say but I contend that it then pretty quickly deteriorates into what they really want – just to keep us in line, to keep us within their PCist vision of how the UK should be run.

  4. May 8, 2011 at 10:04 am

    It hadn’t occurred to me before but if you look at the ability to dispose of garbage as a resource then littering seems like a good everyday example of the tragedy of the commons. What annoys me is that my front hedge is not bloody commons but my bloody property, and it still gets people’s bloody trash put in it 👿 Both barrels of a Beretta could certainly be arranged, but it seems excessive and I’m sure Victoria police would have something to say about it. In an ideal world I suppose it could be made a tort case but in its way that also seems OTT, and I suppose that if we’re talking ideal worlds we should expect it not to happen at all.

  5. May 9, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Tragedy of the commons, indeed.
    it occurs to me that an issue of ownership may be at work here. at present, the streets are swept by “somebody’s job” paid for by a nebulous thing called “taxes.”
    Nobody owns the streets. If people had to sweep their own streets (or pay somebody directly to do it) they would probably be far more likely to respect the streets of others.

  6. May 10, 2011 at 1:07 am

    The law is fundementally flawed. It doesn’t explain what its intention is and is easy to work around. I know this like the back of my hand, so if you, or anyone, wants help fighting excessive injustices, I would be happy to help.

    http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/topics/person/benjaminbarton

    • May 10, 2011 at 5:51 am

      Cheers Ben!

Comments are closed.