From Force to Reason

Throughout the history of politics, up to and including this day, force has always taken precedence over reason in the settlement of human affairs. Autocracy and anarchy both rely on physical force to impose decisions. In a democracy force remains as the decisive factor, only now physical force is replaced by force of numbers, or increasingly, force of money. A law is right because it has the support of the majority; it needs no other justification.

But democracy has produced, and continues to produce bad laws, laws which are oppressive, prejudicial or financially irresponsible. If we choose to apply reason to our political and social differences rather than force of arms or of numbers, we are led to the question as to what is 'right' and 'wrong' in law.

The central issue of politics, indeed the one single factor which makes the very science of politics necessary, is the predilection of humans to gain wealth and prominence, not through their own efforts alone, but by claiming a share of the works and invention of others. This we do by theft and murder, by claiming a disproportionate share of the natural resources, through dishonest trading, or through politics either legally or illegally. If we were able, either willingly or under the discipline of law, to live our lives without harming or exploiting one another, we would find ourselves living in harmony, peace, productivity and prosperity. Collaboration creates prosperity; dissension destroys it.

Currently we prefer to live in a state of conflict, in which each tries to get the better of others. This is reflected in our democratic system through which we vacillate between Right and Left. The Right allows considerable freedom for powerful people to exploit the less powerful, while the Left supports those who see themselves as exploited and assists them to rectify the perceived injustices through equalizing taxation and welfare benefits. We have polarized ourselves into two camps, and we fight one another through the ballot box, each side or social group trying to get the better of the other.

We have an alternative: the Principle that we should avoid any and all actions which are harmful or detrimental to others.

The concept of living life without harming or exploiting others is not new. The principle is enshrined in the Ten Commandments of the Christian Faith; it forms the basis of English Common Law. Its derivation, namely that the purpose of government is to prevent people from injuring one another, was simply stated by Thomas Jefferson. It was repeated by one of Britain's most prominent jurists, Lord Denning: What matters is that each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the same.

This is the Principle of Non-Injury, a fundamental law of social conduct with which we are all instinctively familiar.

We should all have the freedom to enjoy life and improve ourselves as we choose and are able. But we should not do so in ways which are harmful or detrimental to others; we should not seek gain at the expense of others' loss.

With the guidance of this Principle we would share resources equitably and use them wisely, we would trade fairly, we would respect the property, privacy and peace of one another. We would learn to live in liberty, respecting and not infringing the liberties of others. And we would prosper: for collaboration is an infinitely more creative, more powerful force than confrontation.

In this way we would move from the left-right confrontation enacted through democracy, to a new politics guided not by the force of arms or of numbers, but by a Principle. After democracy: principocracy?

Moreover a Principle so clearly defined imposes its own internal constitutional disciplines. If an action inflicts harm or injury on another or others, lawmakers would be obligated to enact necessary protection and prevention. If there is no injury or harm, any government action would be unjustified and thus intrusive and oppressive. Governance would thus be confined between the twin disciplines of obligation and limitation.