If we are to retain our freedoms, we need law to be negative.
This is part one of a three part series on the law and rights.
We are entering a time when the law has become authoritarian. How has this happened? Are we not more enlightened than we have ever been? Why then are we losing our freedom?
A simple law like “Do not kill” is explicit and it makes perfect sense. However, there is movement away from negatives, and the thinking is we should remove “not” from laws because it’s too negative. On the surface, this makes sense. We do not want to be negative. So the question is, how do we make this law positive? Think about it for a moment. It is extremely difficult. We end up with things like, “Be Kind,” “Look after everyone,” or, “Take care of your body.” These nebulous phrases are far from helpful.
Because of this vagueness, each person will have a different understanding of what that entails in everyday life. A law that tells me not to kill anyone does not lay on me an extra burden to always be kind, and it does not mean I have to look after everyone. I only have to make sure I do not kill anyone. Which is the bigger burden: always having to be kind or not killing? Always being kind is a huge burden, and that is before we have even established what kindness is.
If we have to “be kind,” there are no limitations to what that means, when it happens and to whom. Not only it is exhausting, it is all-encompassing, total. And if such a statement were law, it could only be a totalitarian law. So you see, if we are to retain our freedoms, we need law to be negative.