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.

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.