Published in the Western Standard, July 19, 2004, p. 33. (Also available in a pdf scan.)

Protecting Everyone's Liberties Is the Only Way to Protect Our Own
by
Pierre Lemieux

 

Economics is called “the dismal science” because it is built on the assumption that individuals are self-interested. Saints may be different, but assuming that self-interest is the usual motivation is not a bad idea if one wants to understand the world as it is. Yet, why do we, or at least some of us, defend other people’s “life, liberty and property?” Two recent events bear on this question. During the debates of the political leaders in mid-June in Ottawa, and then in front of Paul Martin’s riding office in Montreal, the Canadian Unregistered Firearm Owners Association demonstrated against the C-68 “law” (so-called). Led by Edward Hudson of Saskatoon, a handful of heroes confessed publicly again that they are unlicensed and own unregistered firearms. They could face 10 years in jail, and risk having their lifestyle destroyed for the rest of their lives, in order to defend liberties without which common people will be crushed by the state. And the common people react with bland indifference. Why do Hudson and his comrades bother? One reason may be moral: they have internalized our values of liberty and the rule of law. Another reason is more selfish: by their resistance, they hope to preserve their own lifestyle, which they can only do by fighting for everybody’s rights. From the economic perspective, all heroes are selfish. There is nothing wrong with this kind of selfishness—without it, no free society can survive. The other side of the same coin was evident in a press release issued by the National Citizens’ Coalition on June 21. The NCC and its able leader, Gerry Nicholls, have been at the forefront of the fight against the federal gag law, which severely restricts third-party speech during election campaigns; they lost the legal battle before the Supreme Court on May 18. Now, says the NCC, “Chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, has always been quick to lay gag law charges against conservative groups,” and urges him to “carefully [monitor] the actions of certain leftist groups,” lest the latter monopolize independent speech. My first reaction was that the NCC is sort of snitching on people who only exercise their own right to free speech. But it is not that simple. The left and its dictators of the proletariat, like Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, wanted a gag law against us. They love the state, so let them get a taste of it. Let them be fined, or, if they don’t pay or they resist the bailiff, go to jail. In other words, we are naturally less tempted to fight for the rights of the enemies of liberty. Thus, I will not rush to the defence of any statist caught by the gag law, or, at least, I will keep my revolver in my holster. However, this setup is not exactly supportive of social peace. One major discovery of western civilization is that the most efficient social arrangements are based on a mutual recognition of rights, and that these rights must be defined in such a way as to be compatible and nonconflictual. Private property is the paradigmatic case: you do what you want with what is yours; I do my own thing. You express your opinions with your money; I do the same with mine. You may choose not to exercise your right of self-defence, but you dare not forbid it to others. This is the opposite of the laws that CUFOA and the NCC are fighting. Individuals defend others’ liberties when it helps protect their own. The danger of our times is that this reality is forgotten as life becomes so politicized that everybody wants to jail those who don’t think or live like them. But then, I understand those who argue that it’s a war. A war between—let’s say the words—tyranny and liberty.