It was in 2012 when I listened to several talks about liberalism. That time I was following a German journalist who considered himself as being libertarian. I still remember the clear words coming out of his mouth: My body belongs to myself. I´m the one who is fully responsible for my life. I´m the one who is eligible to bear the fruits out of my work.
Immediately I felt a deep sympathy for that kind of attitude. It simply sounded right. Until today I have not found reasonable counterarguments which contradict to that attitude. Probably that´s a sign for my drive and willingness for independence.
But in fact, I´m aware that I´m highly dependent on several things. For example, I benefit a lot from most of the laws existing as part of the German state. When first a law sounds like something which restricts my freedom in fact my freedom increases. For example, I´m forced to pay a certain amount of my earned money for taxes. However that money is being used in order to run a functional security system in terms of inner and outer security. By paying that money I trust in that if I´m getting attacked, there will be policemen protecting me. Additionally, I trust in that if the German state is being attacked, there will be soldiers protecting the country. In sum, I will never be able to provide that level of wider security by my own.
That being said simply restricts me from complaining about paying taxes. At least as long as there is reward provided in return which I consider as being valuable.
But back to the beginning. I want to emphasize a question which popped up in my mind while following the talks of the German journalist in 2012. It seems that during that time by listening to these talks I was feeding my liberal soul with arguments in order to justify my own behavior. As the statements from the author sounded so comprehensible I suddenly recognized that based on that it´s not acceptable that the consumption of hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin is not permitted. Based on the conclusions of pure liberalism (libertarian) everyone is responsible for his or her own decisions. As a conclusion it´s not allowed to restrict anyone from consuming hard drugs as everyone is eligible to decide by himself or herself if he or she wants to consume hard drugs or not.
That being said, why do we need or better say have laws which restrict people from consuming hard drugs? It´s their own life. If they do so, it´s their own decision. Their body and their mind belongs to themselves. Based on liberal thinking it´s not allowed to intervene in their behavior.
When these thoughts popped up in my mind they sounded so comprehensible. Based on my liberal soul I concluded that as long as another person does not do any harm to myself he or she should not be restricted from doing what he or she considers as being the right thing. Even if the right thing means consuming hard drugs.
I was not able to get that conclusion out of my mind. However, I also was not able to clearly state that the consumption of hard drugs should be permitted. Probably that way of thinking was driven by my social soul. In a certain way in 2012 I already followed the approach that people as part of a state should carry a certain amount of responsibility towards other people. In other words, it sounded comprehensible that the consumption of hard drugs is not allowed as in most cases it will lead to severe harm to the people who are consuming them. That´s where the social responsibility stepped in. I was thinking: Let´s not allow people to destroy themselves by consuming hard drugs. As a conclusion, let´s restrict the access and it´s consumption so that people have minor opportunities to do so. As one society let´s broadly decide that hard drugs in sum are bad and dangerous. Logically, let´s restrict access to them.
Again, that way of thinking sounded comprehensible. It sounded right not to allow people to do everything they consider as being right. One factor which underpins that attitude is that the consumption of hard drugs will likely increase costs in terms of the health system. Hence it´s right to restrict the access to hard drugs in order to prevent the health system from wasting money.
But that attitude is additionally underpinned by the assumption that maybe a certain amount of people is not able to decide by themselves what is right and what is wrong. On the one hand that way of thinking highly contradicts to a liberal soul. On the other hand that way of thinking appears to be the basement for a social soul. Likely that a pure socialist will always argue with the following: There´s a certain amount of people out there who do not know what is best for themselves. Even if, then they are not able to create a better life for themselves out of that. So let´s act as a deputy for them as they are simply too weak or too dumb to create a better life for themselves.
Based on that the question which I was trying to answer in 2012 was the following: Is it right (from a moral perspective) to restrict the access and consumption of hard drugs per law? The liberal approach as well as the social approach as being mentioned above, they both sounded comprehensible to me. That´s why I was not able to give an answer to myself. As a conclusion, I kept carrying that question for several years. After a while I gave up thinking about it actively. In a certain way I felt that simply there will be no answer.
The solution
I assume that it was in 2022 when the question popped up in my mind again. Or better say, I recognized that the solution had popped up. In 2022, I finally recognized myself thinking the following: The German society or better say the majority of the German society has agreed that the access and the consumption of hard drugs should be restricted. As a conclusion, several laws have been imposed in order to implement these restrictions. In this context, it does not matter if these persons are liberals or socialists. Their background is irrelevant. The fact is that they have decided to do so. If I feel restricted by these laws it´s me who is forced to change them. I can simply convince the majority that the access and the consumption of hard drugs should be allowed. If I convince the majority of the people successfully, as a conclusion the laws will be changed.
So nowadays I know that when being confronted with my question in 2012 I was simply stuck in my way of thinking. The basement of my thoughts was: Liberal vs. social. Which approach is the right one from a moral perspective?
The point is: As none of them is right or wrong it´s obvious that I was not able to answer my question.
In other words, in 2022 I finally recognized that by asking if something is morally right or morally wrong simply does not make any sense. The point is that laws are not exclusively being created based on moral attitudes. Moreover, within a democracy laws are the result of decisions of the majority. The moral attitude can act as a driving force in terms of the decision. But it does not have to be. Moreover I assume that decisions are mainly driven by pure egoism.
What I was not aware in 2012 is that if I feel restricted by a specific law I can simply change it. I just need to convince the majority of the people as part of that society to change their opinion. So in 2012 in terms of political questions I was thinking out of the role of a victim. I was thinking: Drugs are restricted. Hey society, you´re restricting my personal behavior. I don´t think that you are allowed to do so. Why you´re doing that with me? Why do you intervene into my life? My body and my mind belongs to me. I´m fully responsible for my own decisions. So let me decide what´s best for my own and do not restrict my personal behavior with too many laws.
Nowadays I think: Drugs are restricted. The majority of the society has agreed to do so. If I feel restricted by that law, I can simply change it. If I do not agree to the way the majority thinks about a certain topic, it´s me who needs to change their assumptions.
The way how I think nowadays is the opposite of thinking out of a victim role. In this context, it´s deeply satisfying. That´s why currently I´m applying my new way of thinking to every law which I´m confronted with. I simply ask myself if that law really restricts my personal behavior. If not, I can simply tolerate the existence of that law. Or better say, I can stick to the opinion of the majority. If yes, I´m eligible to change the restriction.
To catch up the example mentioned again: Hard drugs are forbidden. So I ask myself: Does the ban of hard drugs really restrict my personal behavior? The answer is: No. I´m not interested in the consumption of hard drugs. So I can simply tolerate the existence of the law which restricts hard drugs. However in that sense the question if a law restricts my personal behavior should not be the only relevant factor when figuring out if specific laws are necessary. For example, even if I´m not restricted by that law, allowing the consumption of hard drugs could be beneficial from a tax perspective. But that´s another topic.
Holy words
Based on the fact that I´m able to ask myself if a specific law really restricts my personal behavior and considering the fact that I´m living within a democracy there´s simply no need and it´s not eligible to judge society or better say the majority of the society with a moral attitude in terms of the laws which have been created. They simply decided that way. Based on their own needs and assumptions.
To sum it up, based on my liberal soul every law appears as a restriction in a certain way. So going forward when being confronted with a law I will simply ask myself: Does that law really restrict my personal behavior? If not, let´s simply tolerate it. If yes, then I´m only allowed to complain about the law if I put the same effort in changing it.
Any thoughts on this can be sent privately to send@realthoughts.me or publicly via the comment function below
Martin