A Non Fiction Trilogy








           Freedom is an important subject.

           Since ancient times people have struggled to overcome obstacles to freedom.    Freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom from oppression, freedom to choose your job (Not to be confused with job opportunity), to choose where you 1ive, freedom of expression, etc.

            Rather than an open-ended concept however I would like to categorize freedom into several types


1. Personal Freedom

2. The Relational Concept of Freedom

3. Freedom from Poverty


             Personal freedom is something like getting up on the weekend and going out and breathing the fresh air and smelling the flowers and knowing you can do what you want to that day.

              I think of personal freedom as having much to do with our relationship with God.    As God said "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free and if the son shall set you free, you shall he free indeed', and it is written, "whoever sins is a slave to sin”.

              Another type of freedom is what I call the relational concept of freedom.    It involves one person doing something, which maybe is in conflict with what someone else wants to do.    For example, if someone wants to go swimming in a spot in some in some country pond and someone else wants to go fishing at the same spot.    Or two people both want to use the same parking space.

              The relational concept of freedom is what is involved in government and legal affairs.    The term individual rights actually refers to one individuals rights in relation to another individuals rights, not to something akin to the personal type of freedom of being able to do whatever one wants. Many mistakes can be made if one uses the personal type of freedom in the exercise of government.  In referring to government one should use the relational concept of freedom.

              A third type of freedom is freedom from poverty. This particularly ecological relationships, that is natural biological rather than man-made requirements.










  “ If law is a form of authority; if authority implies coercion, and coercion restraint; if the essence of freedom is the absence of restraint it is obvious that, implicit in any discussion of law, is the problem of freedom. To the extent that law restrains man from interfering with the activities of others, he is not free. But to the extent that the restraint per­mits the activities of others, then they are free. Thus, where law exists, freedom is created at the same time it is denied. By denying one the freedom to kill, law gives everyone else that much more freedom to live; by denying one the freedom to steal, law gives everyone else that much more freedom to enjoy his possessions. By denying one the freedom to spend all of his earnings (taxation), the law gives others that much more freedom to travel (roads), to obtain an education (schools). Indeed, the freedom to do what law permits one to do would be nonexistent if it did not, at the same time, effectively prevent everyone else from inter­fering with that freedom. Freedom, thus conceived, is a relational con­cept; the references above to "him," "others," to "one," "everyone else," suggests that, when it is protected by law it consists of rights against other human beings. When so viewed, "freedom"-like "property" and other abstract concepts of law-loses a certain aura of the mystical, and permits of translation into concrete positive terms.1






1    Julius Cohen,   'The relation of Law to Freedom and Authority", Freedom and   Authority in our time Twelfth Symposium of the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, ed. Lyman Bryson, Louis Finkelstein, R.M. Maciver , Richard Mckeon (The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, in relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc. New York, 1953) p. 217.









Maximizing Freedom


         Considering the minimum amount of freedom two people can have, that is neither can do anything they want; and the maximum freedom, that is both can do everything they want.

          Considering the relational nature of freedom*, it follows from above hat there are two basic ways freedom is denied.   By physical actions, i.e. assaults etc. and by mental anguish, that is others not doing what you wish they would denies you a freedom of "desires unfulfilled"

          Now with every action there is a desire also.   But until a desire is acted upon it is only a desire. If we assume to give actions and desires equal weight and the desires + actions of any group always a constant value, then: if A pursues an action we have Aa (the action) + Aad (the desire of the action) fulfilled (freedom to do it)

         If B doesn't want A to do it then we have only Bd unfulfilled, so Aa + Aad > Bd.    So freedom is maximized.

         If B acts their desire to stop A then Aa + Aad   =   Bd + Bda , or there is less freedom.

         If A tries to stop B from stopping them, then every ones actions and desires maybe stopped and all freedom annulled.

         Of course then if there is no conflict at all freedom is at its maximum

         Therefore the maximum possible freedom can only be achieved by going by the rule of not allowing physical actions against others.

          We can state the principle of maximum freedom as:


No one has the right to physically interfere with another's se1f or property, conversely;

One has the right to do anything one pleases as long as it doesn't physically interfere with another’s self or property


Forming a Constitution


           Taking the above principle and adding to it the idea of groups (and renaming it);


Law of Liberty


No person or group of persons shall physically interfere with a

   person’s self, or a persons or group of persons property.





    * Here a certain level of opportunity is assumed, and the opportunity factor in freedom is not considered but the relations among people only, although eventually opportunity would be also intertwined.


             Now let’s consider some of these relationships mathematically.   The forgoing principle applies to all of the following cases.   A group is defined as any possible subgroup of the whole society.   The whole is equated with government, as in a democratic society government represents the union of the people.


                ­­           person vs person

                                  group   vs person

                                  group   vs group

                                  person vs whole

                                  group   vs whole

                                  who1e   vs whole


If one wishes to add the terms saying the maximum possible cannot be exceeded, then;


                                  person   +    person     < whole

                                  group    +    person     <=  

                                  group      +   group        <= “

                                  person     +   whole        >   

                                  group      +   whole        >   

                                  whole      +   whole        >   


           So one can represent the rights of the whole as superseding the Law of Liberty in cases where the whole cannot conflict with itself (mathematical1y equal to or exceed its own value

But to compromise these two ideas (allowing whole vs group/person/whole, or mathematical1y not allowing whole vs group/person/whole we might say that some of the time society as a whole, that is government has a right to do anything that they want regardless of whose interests are superseded, and some of the time government must respect the rights of individuals. Restated: government may do whatever they feel is in societies best interest even superseding the rights of individuals and groups however there should be 1imits on the same.

Now guessing on a mix of limits and government's right to do whatever seems in the best interest to society I would simply use the idea that government should uphold the Law of Liberty as stated, except in the case of the whole. And as the whole it should have every right over others property but the right to interfere with a person’s self limited to items of positive medical benefit. Now incorporating all these ideas into a model constitution:


*    *    *    *    *    *

A   Model Constitution


1. The legislature shall be elected democratically.


2. No persons or group of persons shall physically interfere with a person’s self, or


a persons or group of persons property.


3.    The country as a whole, through its elected legislature, shall have the right to pass any laws it deems necessary except those violating #l above, and #2 except in the case as regards the countries (not any person or group less than the country) interest vs a persons or groups property or a person’s self (to be limited to items of positive medical benefit).


4.    The legislature shall pass laws as necessary to enforce, comply, and as pertains to the above.



Now what else is the present U.S. Constitution made up of other than the things associated with the above principles? I would suppose 3 other factors;

    -Housekeeping (rules for elections, etc.)

            -Other principles (separation of powers, etc.)

            -Legislation which needs to be protected from easy change by incorporation in the constitution as it is less readily amended compared to legislative laws.



Further Interpretation of the Constitutional Principles


           Expanding on chart #1 we want to ask, should it be against the law to hurt oneself? Using a similar question from the mental anguish side of the chart #l, should it be against the law for one to be offended by one’s own actions.    In terms of common sense this would he illogical.          Conversely then on the physical side it should be the opposite, that is it should be against the law to physically harm oneself.

          Now tying this in with the Law of Liberty and the question of selling items by a principle that;


The Principle of Merchandising


It is illegal to sell goods whose primary use by the buyer will harm themselves or others (regardless of consent).


       This would apply to both the seller not being allowed to sell such products or the buyer not being allowed to purchase such products. However we cannot extend the idea of self-harm being illegal to property. So an individual has the right to destroy their own property, further someone may give consent to another to destroy their property.

          Considering a case study. Company B puts a harmful additive in a product. This by the Principle of Merchandising is against the law.

          Now let’s consider the definition of physical more completely. What is physical and what isn’t? In the common sense we think of physical assaults. However we should add chemical effects, bright lights, excessive noise, etc.

          So it is apparent the degree of the physical effects or/and the amount of harm needs to be part of the definition


Chart #1 Maximizing Freedom 






            So how should this line be drawn? With assaults perhaps just consider such as

physical (degree of assault might be considered, but this has more to do with sentencing).

             But in things such as selling of goods, bright lights, noise etc.   Where should the line be drawn? It must have to do with degree of harm, and with things like noise this must be scientifically established.   Let’s consider it as a matter of permanent harm or not.

             But with the selling of goods, what degree of permanent harm should be outlawed? After all sugar will decay ones teeth, doing permanent harm.  Should sugar be outlawed? Along with degree of permanent damage let’s consider it a matter of individuals being able to change their own behavior or not.   So the qualification of illegal physical harm concerns one’s own behavior, as well as things imposed from the outside.

              With noise if someone blasts a stereo at excessive decibels at your property, this is something imposed from the outside, and if it could cause permanent damage it would be illegal.

                Whereas if you cause damage from sweets the maxim is rather the behavior is changeable, although a vague topic; but this definition is needed if we want to put any importance on allowing people freedom of choice, which is, of course, what we want to maximize.

              So although you could ruin your teeth with sugar it is behavior that might reasonably be expected to be changed if one wants to.

                However something addictive by definition is a situation where the possibility of changing ones behavior is so reduced that it should be out1awed.    Now some question could arise over degree of harm and degree of addiction.    However by drawing a line properly the question can be answered by saying anything worse than such and such is outlawed, and less is not.

            Consider drawing the line at a substance 1ike cigarettes where the addiction and permanent effects are substantial.   So anything cigarettes or greater in addiction and harm is outlawed, and everything less (a situation where there is more hope of the individual (with/without help) overcoming the problem) is legal. Alcohol is harmful, but we need to put the emphasize on product labeling and education but with cigarettes we need to ban them.

            Now this then answers most questions because a dividing point is established.



Biochemical Effects

          A human is a biological organism. All internal human activity is a biological reaction of some-sort even our thoughts, therefore anything that can affect our thoughts effects ones biology. Can it be determined rather that is harmful or helpful for every possible effect? Certainly not. To maximize freedom by the Law of Liberty mental interference (anguish) gets canceled out leaving only physical interference. But a distinction must be made as to what is physical and what is mental.   However it has just been stated that from the biological facts that everything even our mentality has a base in physical-ness.

          Here the idea of permanent effects can be resorted to again. For example if we should hurt someone’s feelings, hopefully the possibility exists of repenting, saying


Chart #2 – Expansion of chart #1 to show some specific “limits”.








something nice and being forgiven, and making up the breech, therefore no permanent effect

           Therefore I will quickly move through all these mental influences and eliminate them by that maxim/idea, up too things we see in the courts like payments for mental anguish, liable, etc.           I am going to include pornography in this limit, as studies and history have shown that pornography has a pronounced detrimental effect on behavior such that it can be considered   here must be some sort of unknown biological reaction that is harmful to a permanent or not easily repairable extent, which is caused by dwelling on pornographic media.

          Therefore I would include pornography on the edge of this dividing line.

          Here then a definition of pornography is needed which might be:


Definition of Pornography


Public communication explicitly describing or depicting unclothed human

anatomy for other than medical or scientific reasons (explicitly describing or depicting refers to non-incidental or non-intentional description or depiction of unclothed human anatomy as such).



           Now what right does the government have to interfere with someone’s self? As stated this should be limited to medical necessities.  Where should the line be drawn here? Consider a sequence such as shown on chart #3












          The possibility exists in using principles, and seeking the limits and boundaries these principles might imply that an outline for government and laws toward completeness might be pursued.

           What has been lost/changed by these principles? What is done now is essentially the same as under these principles, except for certain changes such as banning cigarettes, which is way out of line with current policies anyhow.

           With pornography the idea of free speech (as a mental influence) has been considered.   This has always been along the borderline of dispute.   So drawing a line around there is not something critically different.   What has been preserved is the vast majority of free speech for good reasons.

















Section 1               Three Proposed laws


Mandatory Population Stabilization


              It be proposed to set the limit to the U.S. population at 325 million.    If this limit is exceeded then the numbers (below) at X shall be 20 and at Y shall be 21.   For each million people over the limit the numbers at X and Y shall be lowered by one.

              If a male begets X children he shall be required to have himself sterilized.   Failure to do so shall result in imprisonment until the age of 45.

              If a female conceives X children she shall not be asked, or required, to have sterilization, however if she has Y children, by whatever means, she shall be required to do the same as above for males.

              Any immigration into the country shall be admitted only if there is an equal emigration out, unless the country immigrated from has an equal population stabilization policy, in which case immigration to and from shall not be restricted.

              Anyone having Y or more children, or pregnant with a X child or more, when the bill starts, shall not be subject to the above requirements unless a following child is born.

              Those who, due to un-manipulated circumstances of multiple births, exceed the limit, but would not have had a single child been born, shall not be subject to the above requirements unless a following child is born



Public Pornography Ban


Al1 pornographic media shall be banned.


Tobacco Products Ban


             The sale of or private manufacture of cigarettes, cigars, snuff or the like shall be banned as well as the growing of tobacco



Section 2        On government and banning pornography


             What if the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or parts thereof, should not be in the best interest of the people? Should we remain beholden to that which is not in our best interest? Why should there be any government or laws, particularly if one would be “free” to speak or do whatever one wanted without the same?

             However if two people should each want to do something that is in contradiction to the other, how is the conflict resolved?

              One way is to fight it out, the victor, having defeated his or her foe, gets his or her way. The other way is to come to some mutual agreement for resolving the conflict without fighting.   In a democratic system this is done by abiding by the rule of majority (vote) as to the laws (rules) to be set forth.   If we are to assume that the people who don't get their way (though agree to abide else fall under penalty of law), are oppressed, then majority rule is the only way to minimize oppression.   For if the minority (of opinion) sets the law, then the most people (the majority) are oppressed and oppression is not minimized. Thus, democracy seems to be a most reasonable form of government.

            Is this not then a prima fade reason for the establishment of government and laws, to resolve conflicts of interest?

I would say there are three basic reasons for government:


1.      For people to do what is in their best interest.


2.      To engage in collective projects.


3.      To resolve conflicts of interest, both those among individuals and those among groups who disagree as to what’s in their best interest to do.


            Therefore considering these things to be so there is absolutely no reason why, at any time, absolutely any law should not be enacted that people feel is in their best interest.   And if all or part of the Constitution, is not in the peoples best interest it should be changed.   Specifically if freedom of speech is not in our best interest there is no reason it should not be changed.

            But it is not my contention that freedom of speech is not in our best interest, nor should it be abolished, only that we have a perfect right to do so if we wish.   And that any exception to the rule of freedom of speech that is in our best interest to exclude, should, absolutely, be so excluded.   Specifically I believe we should exclude pornography from this amendment, if the courts should not, or will not, interpret this clause to exclude (public) pornography.

              Does this mean we should be opposed to the concept of freedom, including the articles in the Bill of Rights?

              No because it is in society’s best interest to allow an individual the maximum freedom to make their own decisions and follow their own course.   The Bill of Rights is an expression of this, but it is by no means an invitation to not having laws.

              Rather society is a delicate balance between an individual doing what they want, and rather this interferes with other individuals doing what they want; and a group of people doing what they want and rather this interferes with what another group wants, and rather that too interferes with what an individual wants, and vice versa.

             Therefore ones rights are only what is justifiable.   Easily justifiable rights are ca11ed inalienable rights.

            Freedom to express ones opinions is a fair deal not conflicting because we all have the right to listen or not and opinions are not something one ought to regulate.

            Currently certain forms of speech are not considered a justifiable right, but are against the law; such as liable, treason, defamation of character, product labeling, perjury, etc. However if we are going to exclude items from the first amendment then we must be sure to make clear what is excluded and what is not, as the items that should be included in the important idea of freedom of speech are important and should be protected.

          Is pornography justifiable? What's right and what's wrong? Well this isn't totally the issue, the issue is just as well that in a democratic society majority rules and if the majority feels pornography should be banned we ought to do so.

          As far as what’s right and what's wrong perhaps only history will show rather allowing public sale of pornographic materials and public pornographic actions is beneficial to individual freedom or not.



Section 3   On overpopulation


           On overpopulation I feel that, in collectively and democratically planning to stabilize our population, the right of all individuals, who so choose, to seek their happiness through the embodiment of a family, must be protected.

            Why is this right jeopardized? Controlling the population by voluntary means requires the education, i.e. the motivation of people to have fewer children.   Quite possibly in the "developed" nations this has already “worked”.   Many people raise no families at all.   Others continue to have 4-5 or more children.   Is it right that the “motivated” people should bear the burden, in essence, not just choosing not to raise a family, but making a sacrifice not to do so? Is this a right that anyone should have to sacrifice entirely? I believe this is why we should have a law, so as to deal with this problem equably.

           This is an issue that goes beyond the voluntary measures of all but the total democratic body of the nation at large. Certainly rules affect people, as these rules would.   But lack of rules can affect people as much.   Freedom is justice; freedom is in reality not without it.

As stated in section 2 we can have freedom while having rules and regulations because such rules can serve to mediate differences of opinions among people.   Having a mandatory law to stabilize the population is such a “freedom rule” because it balances the rights of one person to another in meeting the goal of preventing overpopulation.

           Let us guide ourselves, not through wishful thinking and piecemeal approaches, afraid of setting appropriate and desirable rules but let us consider that fairness dictates that all people be treated equally in this matter, and nothing be left to chance or suppositions.



Section 4   On Mandatory population stabilization


On the seemingly harsh law on population (section 1), let me say this, that having a law dependent on incentive measures (tax cuts, etc.) would preference controlling the population growth on one’s economic status which I find unacceptable.   And to have no law at all would not solve the problem.   So the only alternative is a "requirement” type law.   Though seemingly harsh I have tried to write it with the least mandatory measures possible considering the nature of the requirement.   However I feel the people have a right to employ any measure, democratically decided as being in the public interest, even mandatory sterilization.

However it is my hope that this law as written would forgo the need for this, and that if enacted the vast majority of people would not need to comply (having less children than the limit) or would comply with voluntary sterilization.   The law is triggered by a predetermined population size so perhaps it would never have to be implemented at all as long as people succeed in voluntarily keeping the population from reaching that point.   But it is needed to assure people that action will be taken if necessary, so, as previously mentioned, no one feels they have to give up having a family to prevent overpopulation, therefore assuring that the responsibility of controlling population growth is shared equably.



Section 5   On immigration


           Immigration is a critical issue.   It is also a very simple issue.    If the United States has a birthrate near replacement level but allows Immigration from countries with high birthrates, then the U.S. and world population will rise.   This hurts both peoples in other countries, and the USA by not solving the overpopulation problem anywhere. We are forced to deal with their high birthrate problem, which we only encourage by giving the impression that overpopulation does not matter to us. Therefore a National Population Policy must include a ban on immigration from countries without similar policies.

            Immigration at its most fundamental is a bad thing. It means peoples are being up-rooted from long standing communities and friends. It is much more desirable to bring jobs and safety to these communities, rather than people to have emigrant from them.

           In America immigration is no longer what is used to be. When North and South America where discovered by Europeans the population density was far below that of the Old World of Europe, Asia and Africa. That is what has permitted free immigration for 400 years to the New World. But now population density is too much everywhere and there is no more ability to welcome and absorb more immigrants without great harm to the environment and eventually the economy.

          Overpopulation was understood in the 1960's and people began to cut back on their family size in the well-educated western countries. Unfortunately, immigration was not controlled and in the USA 50 million people have been added from immigration in the past 40 years, doing great harm to the environment. This unchecked population increase is the main reason for global warming, global poverty and extinction of animal species, raising cancer rates, and other environmental destruction, and it will get much worse soon unless countries  act one by one to establish strict governmental policies. Education was tried in the 60's and it has failed to solve the problem, and in fact it never could if one thinks such a policy though long term.





It is necessary for governments to ban pornography so that individuals can avoid pornographic addiction.

Normally our feelings, our influences on each other and our will can be separated enough that persuasion and experience alone is enough for people to learn right and wrong.

But with pornography these factors are so intermingled that I believe it will be found to be a biological fact that we need support from governmental policy banning pornography for individuals to learn proper conduct.



Pornography and the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and of the Press.


             The idea of freedom of speech and of the press is to allow a discourse of various ideas so that, hopefully, good ideas can be found. Speech is not an end in itself but a means to ideas that can benefit society.

            There are some forms of speech and press that are so far from any civilized discourse there is no justification for protection by the First Amendment.

             How can legitimate arguments be protected? I propose a principle similar to the idea often followed, that the First Amendment should refer to political speech.   Here is the policy:


1.     Any speech or press to be enjoyed by a person unto an interest pertaining to their own person shall be subject to such laws as to protect against liable, slander, etc., and health and welfare.


2.        Any speech or press to be enjoyed by a person unto an interest pertaining to community interests shall be protected by the First Amendment


Application of these Principles


The following are some current laws, all of which might currently be considered as violations of free speech.    Notice how they all would fall under #1.





                  Product labeling (FDA laws to list ingredients, etc.)

                  Roadside advertising regulations.



             All news, public debate, etc. would fall under #2.




1          The King James Version , (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

[4]          The King James Version , (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

[5]          The King James Version , (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.