The Personal Freedoms Protection Amendment

The Personal Freedoms Protection Amendment reads as follows:

“Behavior expressed in the pursuit of happiness,
which does not force others to participate against their will,
is an unalienable right of the people.”

We are all born with unlimited personal freedom, and we continue to have it. Nothing can stop anyone from committing rape or murder, etc., and that is why such crimes continue to occur. All we can do is discourage that kind of behavior through cultural norms and the threat of punishment.

Most of us believe that the more freedom we have, the better. We also know that some limits must be placed upon our freedoms in order to live in a civilized society. Where do we draw the limits? Is there some fundamental principle which can be applied to define the limits of personal behavior in a fair and equitable way?

In a general sense, it seems that we reach the limit of personal freedom when our behavior harms others in some way. But what constitutes harm?

Perhaps a better way to determine the limits of our freedom would be whether or not one’s behavior forces others to participate against their will. Rape and murder obviously involves forcing others to participate. But there are times when forcing others to participate cannot be avoided. For example, if you wear a strong perfume in public, or your car is in the lane I want to move into on the freeway, I am forced to participate in your behavior. Because we all share the same world it is inevitable that we will interact in ways that require us to participate in the behavior of others. But what about personal behavior which does not force anyone else to participate?

Sex between consenting adults forces no one else to participate. Nor does ingesting any sort of drug, practicing a religion, dying your hair green, choosing what clothes to wear, getting tattoos, deciding who you want to marry, which political party one may wish to support, etc. If any of us own anything in this world it is our minds and bodies, and we should be allowed to do what we please with them — so long as our behavior does not force others to participate against their will.

That all sounds good and fine, until we encounter grey areas where there may be confusion or disagreement regarding what constitutes harm to others. For example, selling hard drugs like fentanyl to consenting adults does not force anyone to participate against their will, but lives are destroyed by such addictive drugs. The same can be said of alcohol. Is it worse to see homeless drug addicts zoning out on the sidewalk, or for drunken men to beat their wives and children? Who is responsible for the harm caused by such chemicals?

It is obvious that a chemical sitting on a shelf harms no one. It is the misuse of the chemical that can cause problems. The solution is education. The only reason why most of us are not abusing drugs is because we learned why we should either avoid them or use them responsibly.

Abortion is another controversial area. If we own our own minds and bodies, then, “My body, my choice,” seems appropriate. However, if an unborn child is considered a living human being, then aborting that child would be murder.

The truth is that every child is utterly dependent on 24/7 care provided by others, for at least 4 to 5 years, before it has any chance of surviving at all. If someone is forced to provide that care against their will they become a slave. Slavery is definitely not freedom. No humane society would force their citizens to be slaves, nor would such a society allow a living, breathing baby to simply die on the street. According to the definition in this proposed amendment, abortions would be allowed up to the point the fetus is viable. A civilized society should also be willing to provide care for babies surviving birth. The fewer abortions there are the better. Again, the solution is education, so unwanted pregnancies can be avoided in the first place.

What about gun laws? I was a reluctant supporter of gun rights until one day I found myself 50-feet away from someone shooting a gun into a crowd of kids playing soccer, seriously wounding two. Crazy people should not have access to guns. We don’t allow cars to be driven down school hallways. Likewise, perhaps guns should be kept at places where they were designed to be used, such as shooting ranges, where they could be checked out for hunting. Self defense can be achieved with non-lethal means.

If the Personal Freedoms Protection Amendment becomes part of the constitution it would maximize individual freedom, and at the same time help to define what should or should not be allowed.