Fundamental liberties

Yesterday, we had the now familiar attack on the government for eroding liberties - someone's written a book apparently.

You would be forgiven, for wondering what the assault on liberty looks like. Here are some examples from of our fundamental freedoms:

• Detention without charge
• ID cards
• Surveillance at council level to monitor littering dog fouling
• and checking children's catchment areas

Obviously, there was me thinking of the right to vote and freedom of speech (which is of course restricted). Of these, only the first is a real erosion of freedom, the last two to enforce laws and the middle one just an expensive fuss over nothing.

I generally wonder if the people who complain about this actually have done any reading / thinking on liberty at all. Here's Mill's starting point: 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.' Mill was concerned over the erosion of liberty and the restrictions on the individual, but his concern was around what it prevented him doing - good negative liberty; I'm a fan. We can point to these - the smoking ban is a classic example, hunting also, any of the frankly silly attempts to prosecute people for not using metric measurements etc - and this government should be asked to account for them. We should be thankful that no dreadful holocaust denial law has been brought in,* though not for the gutless refusal of the government to protect offensive material when it comes under attack. I would have had the army in.

Now, I'm more of a Rousseau man myself, in that I have a profoundly pessimistic view of humanity, the bulk of whom I largely see as incapable of making rational and informed decisions for their own good, let alone anyone else's. Rousseau's concept of the general will (warning: this is a very bad wikipedia article) goes too far in this direction, but is at least an attempt to articulate what people would want if they were not restricted by lack of education, circumstances etc. It's a better attempt than old fashioned paternalism, though the latter is more emotionally compelling. In either case, the bans can be covered, though I do not approve of them all - far from it.

In any case, these are never mentioned. On the other hand, lots of people who have never lived in an ID card-carrying country tell me (who has) how much my movements will be restricted (when they won't). Then they rant on about a police state, and how terrible it will be to have everything on a database, oblivious to the fact that central records are pretty useful: national insurance numbers & tax, driving licences, the land registry etc. Curtailment of liberty means restriction, not the (doubtless irritating and in many cases unnecessary and wasteful) requirement to fill in a form, carry a piece of paper, or have your statement checked for fact.

So, next time we say fundamental liberties, can we actually talk about them.

* For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a holocaust denier, I simply don't believe people's beliefs should be restricted in any way by law. Incitement can be covered separately if that is the state's concern. If not, they have nothing to worry about.