Adverse Effects on the Self do not infringe on Implied Social Contracts

As an individual person of free will and responsible mostly to onself freely for one’s actions, the Self’s resultant effects on outcomes, whether beneficial or detrimental, are best not weighed of significant merit if they nearly solely impact the personal welfare of the Self, and while mostly to the exclusion of more than mild effect on Others.

Thus, negative Self effects are given a pass on relevancy, with only effects on Others being of concern, if we aim to assess when intervention should occur socially, or if we deem to legally judge actions. In contrast, effects created by the Self are judged by classic Liberty theory looking only to assess situations of actions solidly having beneficial or detrimental effects on Others, in social interplay ranging from casual to formal.

To Liberty theory, it is impossible for a person to truly be abusive of himself or of herself.

Detrimental effects for the Self caused by the Self, could only stand as feeling abusive to another individual if that third party had – knowingly or unknowingly – adopted a partial slave-owner or inappropriate parental role, involving exertion of partial ownership and a strong amount of control over another individual person. Thus the ensuing sense of misuse felt by a person having that excessive degree of control or unethical ownership thwarted by the actions of the Self, though in such cases that resistance to such vicarious control would seem wise and just.

Once again, here is the truism: to classic liberty theory – it is impossible for a person to truly be “abusive” of himself or herself. The only beast known as “abuse” takes two or more individuals involved for it to even come into play and exist, upon one or more of the individuals at issue.

This truism can sometimes erroneously seem negligent of the welfare of persons who might seem better off with intervention and outside direction into personal living. Also this truism can often seem too liberal, by way of affording what might erroneously seem like too much latitude and leeway to the individual Self, making no demands of Self-treatment, and only concerned with individual behavior as it might happen to be significantly detrimental to Others and their welfare. Potential risk of significant hurt or harm to Others, physical or in terms of opportunity cost in life, is the very key and relevant guide stone issue, and it is crucial that such realm of possible infringements or infractions be understood as fully decoupled and separate from individual Self-treatment benefits or detriments, those to be set totally free, and with no artificial bounds made by self-hiring nasty nannies bent on controlling others, and often self-convinced that they are in the right.

Surprisingly enough, direct self hurt or harm, or even cataclysmically unwise life decisions, are to classic Liberty theory best left to an individual’s own affairs, and not promoted up as anyone else’s concerns, unless by invite. To this viewpoint, self-abusive is impossible, and the only measures of merit would be found in a citizen taking too much liberty from another (rather than reductions in self status), or behaving in such a manner as to pose a high risk of the same.

Reacting to an individual sharing words largely only affecting his or her Self, those in social interplay conversation potential might choose not to pry and not to judge, if a person had indicated some planned or accidental result detrimental to himself or herself. If a situation were to be sensitive or dramatic, a smart defender of liberty would resist reflex instinct of placing himself or herself vicariously at another person’s potential dramatic emotional loss or infectious group grieving, and instead allow for the individual person to chart his or her own path with dignity and respect, free of being socially somewhat enslaved via guide prods to do what is best to be done to the viewpoint of others.

Classic Liberty theory contends that charting of one’s own path stands of nearly greatest value, regardless if others do in fact know what is best or better to be done than the Self.

The objective of “what is best for me” falls short of the blessings of liberty in “living free,” always.

Of course one individual’s actions can have many far reaching direct and indirect resultant effects on Others. Such effects on Others stand as fair play for consideration in advising, criticizing, and even penalizing an individual.  If absolutely no direct effect, and only subtle or slight indirect effect of a Self’s actions seems to impact Others, in any way that complements or contends, then classic Liberty theory, in support of individuals and social connections, guides that it is better to abstain from challenging or hassling that Self for any Self-lessening or degradation in that Self’s quality of life, internal and external conditions of Self living, Self liberties to the hours ahead, or healthy body matters of personal health.

Liberty Infractions are Social Always

Infringing or infracting is between self and other, never self-to-self

The Self as an individual person of actions is not to be judged adversely for only those effects on himself or herself, and is to be critically judged for only adverse effects on Others.

Classic 18th Century Liberty Theory and Social Contract Theory stand of great merit and character due to the character of their precepts. Those precepts consistently hold high regard for the individual person in parity with such high regard for social interplay and conventions between multiple persons: embracing a philosophy of personal liberty socialism.

Social Contract Theory is not always about formal or legal contracts. It also addresses far more casual and informal ideas as to how we as individual persons interact in everyday ways. Interplay of personal liberties of course is always social. Social merely means that the activity somehow involves (or effects indirectly) two or more persons.

It is only sensible and addressable if any personal liberty ebb and flow in conversation or other interaction is even applicable to the concerns of the theories at all, meaning that mild or casual social reaction liberty issues between people, or more intense infraction or legal/governmental level social conflict implementation, should key on guarding against too much cost to personal liberty when able.

Very primary to this guiding goal in addressing liberty issues, is an approach of using discerning judgment when considering adverse effects between people, with an eye toward discerning painstakingly between those detrimental effects to actions or words made by a sole individual that might effect or have effected another individual, and how those same actions or words might adversely effect or have effected himself or herself, only. Discerning between the two separate resultant groups of effects is crucial, as to classic Liberty and Social Contract Theory, an individual should not be challenged for only those effects upon himself or herself. This seems fairly straightforward, but still it can be a common pitfall, as in our social instincts we do tend to care about the welfare of others. Thus there is always some significant risk of accidentally crossing the line into treating an individual with inappropriate parental oversight attitudes, ostensibly for his or her benefit, but prone to missing that mark by virtue of the vicarious nature of crossing that line. That would be to improperly establish a de facto purview over the welfare of an individual that likely would exceed family or social familiarity allowances, and sadly turn us in a very real way against an individual when we meant to casually or more formally come to their defense.

This even applies for a person in social conversation, but while having prime effect nearly solely on the Self, and so with the results of focused actions being of no risk toward any negative impact on others, in conversations or social interactions.

This just makes sense, though analyzing these interactions between individuals from this social contract theory angle may very well be new to those reading this. Once exposed to these ideas, they do tend to come to new light, and to fit and make sense as well.

Social Citizenship must be accepted by the Individual

Classic 18th Century Liberty Theory places high regard for each individual person, and liberty theory also places high regard on social interplay and constructs, with great merit placed on social activities and interactions being a valued and desired basic life factor between multiple persons.

To react to the personal liberty of an individual, involves socially at least one other person of some degree of free will, and who by situation and availability is at personal liberty soon thereafter to react significantly, or react very mildly and mostly abstaining from strong reaction, in some manner. 

Casual social everyday issues of fair play replies and conversation, as well as more serious issues of potential personal infringements or the taking of unfair or infraction liberties from a socially involved person, whether of legal issue or not, involve a necessarily social liberty interplay.

Reasonable and flexible social allowances in conversation style and in not holding others in social conversation unreasonably responsible to an open and free conversation style with good tolerance for unfamiliarity.

Also, if in conflict as to initially felt reasonable awareness of topics or issues having actually been not the case, then returning quickly to excusal of initial unfamiliar commentary is a good default and fallback option, in such cases.

React to Actual or Likely Impacts on Living Liberties

“Living Liberties” as a term can refer to individuals living portions of their days, with reasonably available access and opportunity to do as recently planned, and of course with exceptions and failures fairly natural, and sometimes expectable, if not likely.  As a regular daily reality, for a person to exercise their “Living Liberties” (once termed “Liberty to Life and Limb”), merely involves engaging in the activities of the hours, or yielding on an activity if unable, sensibly differing to another activity, in particular exception cases.

Liberty infringements, minor to major, could be if and when a third party, willingly or unwittingly, has side effects on a person’s “Living Liberties” to an intensity such that the current hour’s activities become rudely interrupted to a full halt. Hurt or harm is maybe also done physically to the extent of wounds or hospitalization, or an individual might be unnecessarily forced by the course of negative results of negligent actions to cancel out on an entire set of planned activities. In some cases the missed activities might gladly be of minor nuisance, but these happenings can in fact cause great harm, depending on what degree of severe consequences come about due to cancellation and failures in a person’s day.

This is where good social unofficial policy between friends, good social constructs by organizations and families, and good legal codes based properly on Social Liberty, shine through. The supportive spirit and valuation of the living liberties of individual persons guides Social Impact on Living Liberties goals with firm preference away from authoritarian scrutiny on specific individuals’ lives. 

Rather than scrutinizing individuals for heightened liberty and opportunities, the actual issue of concern arises only when an individuals liberty is somewhat downtrodden below nominal, and has nothing to do with high liberties, high opportunities, and individual’s possessing very high quality lives, at least for temporary time periods.

Authoritarian and Dictatorial theories would promote individuals evenly looking to ensure every individual has it similar, with no one having real-time quality of life too good. That is not the Liberty way. The Liberty way is to free and not be jealous, and to leave the field of interplay to strive as it does, by individual means, unchecked, and instead only react to those rare situations that steal liberty and bring persons down, unfairly.

Individuals can be socially self-restraining and withhold from vicariously inspecting others’ liberties as if looking to spoil good times, and instead can remain sensitive and alert to his or her friend’s or families reductions in personal liberty that stand as unnecessary and/or unfair, caused improperly by other parties.

The approach to infringements on Living Liberties is not one of retribution, or attracted to punish the doer of actions. Looking for a personality or a role to be filled is not the Liberty Theory way.

To this approach to matters, may each individual not be scrutinized, and may they each be having a grand and great week, which some might consider to be unfairly a case of too blessed by their own liberties. And to this approach to matters, may there be no adversary and may good social conversation and support deflect away mostly accidental detrimental influences on a given man’s, woman’s, or child’s liberties.

Human Nature is Sound and Reasonable

Classic liberty theory puts forth an opinion of human nature with the default or generic human behavior being neither noble nor vile, but rather with human nature falling more comfortably in between, in the main of population, and with relatively few excursions into truly ugly behavior socially toward others.

This view sees human nature as being overall and on average of sound and reasonable behavior. The view is in no need of casting positive light by way of promoting any grand nobility on human nature, in the raw. This would be a disservice to who we are broadly, and we don’t need more backwards condemnation that we stand in need of such a reputation fix at the start of matters.

The view also does not demote human nature to any necessarily villainous criminal personality, in the raw, either. This would be another disservice to who we humans are, broadly.

Humans are real. Humans at times have admirable strengths and awkward weaknesses. Humans at times exhibit infectious kindness, and at times exhibit droll divested indifference. It is a matter unique to each particular situation and to each individual person’s tastes as to which sort of behavior would have actually been preferred during some social interaction, as over-compensation either way can only make things more awkward.

Equality and Personal Human Interest

All individual human persons stand equal in foundational humanity and equal in contribution to the animal population of planet Earth, by just one human each. The human species features a host of standard consistencies and common traits. Each human’s contributions to natural raw material resources by way of environmental impact, exertions of effort, and output contribution of byproducts is absolutely equal in basic interactive potential, with no human’s basic effects or lasting aftereffects considered inferior or superior in Nature.

Ethically, this view focusing on commonalities between all humans is the proper approach in regarding each of us in cases when a governing legal system (or organizational policy system) becomes involved to either make standing legal codes with power to establish daily norms for widespread citizenship, or power to potentially defend or compensate an individual from infractions by others, and/or power to potentially penalize an individual for their past behaviors’ possible repeat offense risks to others, by way of potentially imposing unusual restrictions upon that offending individual’s rights and liberties.

This stubborn equality stance is key to lessening risks of legislation establishing status of daily norms that once enacted could create an environment of preferential treatment of chosen groups or chosen ways unfairly causing detrimental effects on those of other groups or differing ways of living. This equality stance also reasonably respects the human rights of often unpopular offenders when legally challenged, and mitigates risks of legal system and penal system abuses against offenders.

Any government or organizational policy system can only intend and execute functions conceptually ethically, by way reasonably making it such that all judging and acting upon citizens employs and abides by this viewing of each human to be in equal standing when under any scrutiny. Also, abiding by this ethic is best fostered by placing priority on high fidelity and little room for error invested in the vision behind the rules, while otherwise aware of much error in maintenance and execution of procedural functions. Attempting to place rigid demands on the ensuing structure and letter of the word that are the resultant of legal code legislation and organizational policy making is pragmatically fighting for the impossible, and can taint the intent, vision, and spirit guiding the entire process. Additionally, placing such rigid demands on the ensuing structure can blind operations designers to the need for final word procedures to have built in reaction potential to just such inevitable error and inadequacy that come with all encoding systems. Thus, a more robust set of fallbacks and checks and balances would more likely flow out of operations designs if promoting tight fidelity to the heart and spirit behind it all, rather than counting entirely too much on operating norms and functional procedures to write themselves in an unwise over-investment in methodology rather than in vision.

Government forces, legal forces, and organizational policy forces might best adhere to using this equality view of each citizen or organization member, as this view provides the benefits of a sensitivity to potential hitherto unconsidered effects on individual citizens and groups of citizens by repeatedly readjusting the generic filter when studying unique individual cases that might occur, affording a way to survey possible nuances affecting reasonably fair impact when implementing the details of legal codes having effects on many citizens, and so drafted in response to apparent need for large scale management.

The equality view of each citizen might best be adhered to when governing forces manage escalated or challenged conflicts arising between citizens. In such legal or policy cases where individuals are pitted personally against other individuals, the equality view works to create a filter between personality human interest aspects to each person’s real life and the reactions and sentiments of governing or otherwise presiding officials involved personally in discussions, to guide detachment policies so that discernable and manageable criteria can be well used administratively, for process flow to regulate disengaging and reengaging with naturally occurring social interplay on the part of governing officials with citizens, moderating and managing between the fostering of a reasonably human and humane touch to legal and governmental proceedings thus allowing for social factors, and good procedural switching mindset and view to that of generic equal regard with impartial stance. The equality view of one human by another involves an awkward unique standoff and impersonal abstraction by the viewer, which differs greatly from intimate personal value felt or placed socially between individuals in daily living.

The equality stance is best wise to promote both sides of the regard for individuals, and guide switching from particular individual character back to generic equality as one human, in favor of the merits of both, actually. The dynamic is awkward to consider and reconcile, and seemingly inconsistent, at first consideration.

Worth to Nature stands stubbornly neutral, levelling, and coldly impersonal, and feels cumbersome to adopt in viewing the notions of other individuals, even when merely mentally considering the issues philosophically. Value or worth between individuals in social camaraderie and relationship flexes full of dynamically changing just bias and conditionality, but if expressed in a manner that is not unreasonably unfair to others liberties and rights, as is most often the case in daily life among families, coworkers, friends, affiliates, and associates, this personal right to act on personal life fair biases and preferences as to who to spend time with and pursue association with is key to free will and liberty in its essence.

The standard for ethical government view of equal citizenship and the standard for everyday person-to-person free living are nearly polar opposites. It is somewhat ironic that the equality view is used in governmental and legal considerations and proceedings exactly for the support, promotion and defense of each citizen’s reasonable and fair latitude, liberty, access, right, and freedom from hindrance, in his or her naturally personally fairly custom-biased pursuits of activities and interactions, allowing each individual person to act on attractions, whims, preferences, and dreams that stand free to be very particular, by nature selfish as well as often giving, and not at all beholden to any enforced neutralization of his or her energies being aimed otherwise selectively and with favor aimed freely, in daily personal social capacity not of governmental or legal responsibility.

Viewing humans as equal, and viewing humans as warm unique humane characters, both have place and merit, and matters of context, population scope, and impact scale are involved in selecting which view of human worth to work with, judge resolutions to conflicts significant enough to prompt contest over them, and also individual social personal valuations and preferences interplayed between people, of varied unspoken criteria or measures involved in regarding and approaching other individuals in interplay, in the heart of each person involved in dynamic relationships. I put forth that individual liberty should be upheld such that an individual may be reasonably free to engage in preferred treatment of chosen others in his or her social relationships, and that absent of any unreasonable negative impact on the lives and liberties of others, he or she should go unhindered and not coerced in any way in his or her preferential treatment of favored persons and maintenance of favored social arrangements.

From this follows that governments should fall back to this view of equality, whenever a particular person’s liberties or rights are legally at stake of infraction by another or group forces, or penalization involving loss of liberty by governmental or organizational policy recourse, whether being defended or under prosecution. Each human has equal natural rights of way impact in interactions with others and undeniable potential to demand those rights of way be considered if in conflict or debate.

Classic Liberty theory development of issues of human natural rights takes basis and beginnings in obvious and boring assessments of what can physically be done between people in ungoverned small population situations, honoring realities pragmatically, and in defiance of any theoretical arguments of how behavior ought to be. The more abstractly derived ethical factors to natural rights are approached by liberty theories with an effort to keep derivations or abstractions based on and consistent with natural physical realities and manifest ways of nature, rather than idealized or dreamed up constructs.

A characteristic of classic liberty social contract theory was that in situations when a person became legally judged with risk of having ones life and liberties curtailed, then natural rights were to be viewed as absolutely equal in worth ingrained into each human, regardless and independent of individual uniqueness, skill, popularity, justifiability, station, or suitability to specific task. This lean to prefer equal regard, treatment, or judgment is fundamental to liberty social contract theories, and carries a distaste for elevating anyone above another when it involves fundamentals and basic individual worth. Concerning issues having major consequences on peoples’ lives, if there is to be error with risk of being somewhat unfair in honoring contentions between individuals or groups, it is considered better to err away from judging on merit and character, and return when in doubt to a basic ethical value of raw humanity, thus addressing such in its basic, raw, and equal form. This legal approach is stalwart and consistent for centuries of historically, and differs entirely from the individual character judgments it defends for individuals in their private, vocational, social, and commercial trade lives, so that people can exert independent rights to choose others for social involvement voluntarily and as preferred, allowing fully for personal bias in personal relationships.

To some classic social contract theory, each individual human has a property of membership with and relationship with all of Creation. Free thinking held that Creation was viewed in a context that was independent of religious doctrine implications, much like merely stating the word Nature in keeping with modern usage. The term Creation does not necessarily imply a focus on long ago beginnings of things, but instead points to the here and now, each human continually changing in concert with Creation, and also being created anew and fresh as affected nonstop by each passing moment, ever being created onward by Creation. Attitudes toward Creation such as atheistic views on nature, regarding Creation as limited to the apparent routine forces of science and the physical, were not seen or taken as any affront to the notion of Creation, and were viewed as fair alternatives, in no way diminishing the theoretical importance and beauty attributed to Creation. References to Creation, such as a framework in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that presents a co-supporting triad of derivations to put forth the inalienability of natural human rights, also maintains neutrality religiously and allows each individual in his or her personal version of a given religion to wonder or assert independently as to what elements of the mundane or theologically mysterious can be considered when beholding within oneself the notion of all Creation, as it continually creates onward each person by air, food, beverage, light, sound, warmth, moisture, and contact.

Equal humans share a standard state of humanity. This state of humanity is a beautiful common thread which holds a mold of one species. Of alternative beauty in common is how individuality and personal character nuance vary with such great uniqueness imbued in each member of humanity. Yet no human is so unique as to be as tall as a large oak tree, or to look and leap like a frog. Hence: equality.

Preempting Crime unwisely, with Excessive Punishments

United States state legal code making have for several decades grown increasingly inclusive of “crackdown” mentality polices upon the legally accused or apprehended, in a philosophy of crime prevention by way of draconian sentences, usually put forth as a reasonable way to deter crime before it occurs.

This deterrent attitude aims to get months, years, and decades ahead of crime actually manifesting, and the technique is to aim for the impossible fantasy goal: to prevent all future feasible crime. Not only is this impossible, but much worse it is very damaging to human rights to thus attempt to clean up demographics or stamp out infraction percentages in an authoritarian dystopian multi-year plan to supposedly improve city living conditions with cleaner streets, but much to the costs of infringements on personal liberty for us all.

This philosophy amounts to an unwise and unconstitutional preemptive, preventative, and prohibitionist style of lawmaking, which as couched and stated in proposals would likely read much prettier and not nearly as sinister as truly is. In contrast Crime Stoppers philosophy is to only apply an ounce of prevention, and allow the remainder of the pound to be held in reserve until an actual crime scene has manifested, reacting to crime, rather than attempting to reduce it ahead of time, by way of unethical social engineering and preemptive rehabilitation techniques. In the United States Constitutional based justice system, the philosophy is to not make legal maneuver crimes against the entire populace in a Orwellian attempt to improve society, and instead the philosophy is to place the rights of way of the apprehended, arrested, and/or accused as priority.

A relevant case is the contemporary 2018 situations of state legal codes having been enacted in an attempt to statistically stamp out Driving Under the Influence (DUI), by way of highly exaggerated sentences for the infraction, with even the minimum sentences set to be huge in penalty, apparently to use lawmaking as a device to posture zero defect and zero tolerance attitudes. This violates the principle that minimum sentence, even if found guilty, should allow for zero or at least fairly low to moderate penalty. This approach, along with judging with solid respect for far more doubt than that of automatic and righteous judgment, such that the bar of degree of doubt being reasonable or not includes a large healthy dose of gray zone in degree of doubt, makes for a doubtful zone when acquittal stands always as U. S. Constitutional priority. This better secures to the individual his or her own liberty as imbued, and defends it as always the prime blessing to have, rather than debasing partial takeover of personal liberties.

Personal Liberty Blessings stand as the final hourly and daily goal of the We The People constitution itself, which in Eighteenth Century writing technique meant that it was of greatest weight, leaving the best for last, and placing the lowest priority first.

Moving now into the humanist philosophies included as guidance in the Preamble to our U.S. Constitution, the U. S. Public Education civics course pamphlets present the heading of “Constitution” above one foundational statement, the constitution itself (often termed the Preamble), which is available for all citizens to take involvement in, rather than just citizens in positions of federal government official staffing. Otherwise, the pamphlets present the heading “Articles to the Constitution,” in the nature of attachments to an email, above the list of articles.

The major significance of the articles stands primarily as likely having been very key for the five to ten years following 1787, and more, when further federal governing organizations would have been building structure upon the initialization structure of the articles, as well as providing considerable contemporary guidance for those citizens staffing executive, legislative, and judicial organizational offices.

Otherwise, what pertains to the commonality between all U. S. citizens, being equally human and of no other lifeform, is the U. S. Constitution, being taken as that first paragraph – packed tightly with social contract theorems and liberty theorems.

Returning, the unfortunate contemporary emphasis on preventing crime rather than reacting to it, seems at least partially to be fueled to fire by a feeling I have noticed espoused by many U. S. citizens, which is a personal take on civic roles that a noble way of contributing is to want what is best for people. This philosophy stands as primarily an addiction to parenting roles, forced over peer citizens as the citizens’ virtual parents. To want what is best for people is to effectively lean too far toward partial ownership of other citizens’ lives, and is a policy stance, often to which the lobbying citizen likely might be blind to, which I believe does great evil upon individual citizens who might slip up on a mistake of overly deterrent and preventative legal lines.

I also believe this way of approaching activism and leverage upon lawmakers is very difficult to argue against, as what I view to be the faulty reasoning behind these stances, emphases, and approaches is sublimated and below the notice of those clamoring for stronger prevention, and below the notice of those making these lawmaking decisions. The beast hides in the presumed, unchallenged, de facto condoned, and unaddressed middle-aged U. S. upper-middle class automated ethical popular culture trends, reinforced by parenting attitudes.

A citizens’ virtual invalid parent, wanting what is best for other people, and thus taking dictatorial and despotic charge of other citizens’ lives, may not ethically own or proxy for other citizens, at least not without violating the U. S. Constitution itself. Caring so keenly over other citizens lives, as in recent decades has seemingly been done by constituencies and lawmakers in many states of the United States, is to take liberties with fellow citizens by way of policy making, and is to violate the 5 ongoing goals of the We The People constitution, with the nature of each verb wisely selected, and the order of the verbs aimed at the goals, both indicating that Establishment of Justice is the lowest priority, with citizens owning their imbued liberties, secured to himself or herself each, being the greatest priority.

Legal regard should thus always be piqued toward each accused citizen’s Rights of Way when assessing Human Rights of Way infringements, infractions, and penalization. This is an approach of penal rather than punis, or punishment. The maximum our Justice system should burden any citizen with is a penalty box approach to judgments. React to crime, rather than prevent it years in advance. Avert conflicts, difficulties, and transgressions only soon after they begin to manifest, rather than avoid conflicts, difficulties, and transgressions by way of pressuring lawmakers to crackdown and put other citizens away, in an effort to sterilize the roads and domestic zones.

The lure of goals such as making our republic safer and safer, seems blind to whether that fist crushes personal liberties, and blind to whether it moves matters in the United States far too close to a Justice State for those who slip up with respect to State legal codes and land in situations of near human rights violations for their lack of proper upstanding citizen behavior, and otherwise a Panacea State of being sheltered under the gun, for the remainder of citizens fortunate to have no legal issues upon them, who then must live in a sterile rut of stifling over-security.