There are many examples of actions we can do that do not necessarily effect on the freedoms of others if they are done with care. These actions, which I shall call 'dangerous freedoms', have the potential to harm others and remove their freedoms if not properly performed. If one accepts that maximising the freedom of individuals is a good thing then it is reasonable to allow dangerous freedoms as long as extra provision is given to ensure misuse is minimised.
There are three clear groups of examples that fall into the greater category of dangerous freedoms for which society presently treats each differently. The three groups I wish to discuss are powerful tools, drugs and the ownership of animals. Each of these larger umbrella groups contains many different kinds of actions which vary in their potential danger and therefore need different treatments. The specifics also tend to vary from society to society with certain things permissible in some places and not others. The only thing that links all of these together is that with correct use there is no reason why anyone else should be harmed yet with incorrect use there is a reasonable change of causing harm or the loss of freedoms of others occurring.
The ownership of animals is one of the more vague categories in how it is dealt with in most societies. There is also a huge scope for the threats various different animals pose. A gerbil, or even the mistreatment of a gerbil is unlikely to cause harm or the loss of freedom to a person. (Animal rights are outside the scope of this essay, while I am against the mistreatment of animals I also take a pragmatic view in which I must accept the nature of the food chain and a priority towards society advantaging humans) While a gerbil is mostly harmless a dog is not. An untrained or mistreated animal that is capable of harming a person is a liability. There are some laws in place that relate to what happens when a dog or similar pet attacks a person but these are reactive and not proactive. Any one is able to get a dog regardless of their aptitude or understanding, they can then treat that animal entirely within the law, and even with love and affection, yet still incorrectly thus making it a liability to others.
Horses are far less liable to act aggressively than a dog but are much more powerful than both dogs and, more relevantly, people. Should a horse become scared by something it can buck and accidentally cause severe injury. In the case of horses it is the sensible use of them that is most important in preserving the freedoms of others. With dogs this also applies but it is the correct treatment and training that is most important in preserving the freedom of others. I have little experience with the most dangerous of animals such as lions as they are not commonly owned or encountered in day to day life. Suffice it to say that it is likely you would need far greater efforts and vigilance to ensure the freedoms of others while owning a lion. It is reasonable to conclude that each species is different and requires a different level of provision in society. This sounds like it is lots of legislation however this really need not be the case. The attempts of current law to be all encompassing while remaining as generic as possible leave us unprotected and unclear.
As with animals, and indeed drugs, the difference in potential danger from tool to tool is vast, probably the greatest if taken literally. A drinking straw is not very dangerous even if used maliciously, while a nuclear bomb is. Where do we draw the line at what point a tool is dangerous? A butter knife is not dangerous while a cleaver is. There is a big difference between tools and animals that is important in understanding the intention of the dangerous freedoms concept. A cleaver is only really dangerous to others if used as a weapon which requires the intent of the wielder. The owner of a dog may have no intention of causing harm to another yet is still responsible if it happens. Many tools may be used to harm others intentionally, it is only those which are liable to cause harm unintentionally that concern us or may be considered a dangerous freedom. The car is a perfect example of this, we can intend to run someone over and this is called murder or we can cause an accident through incompetence and still kill someone. We already have ways to approach disincentivising murder within society, I am concerned with ways to pre-emptively minimise unintentional and accidental loss of freedoms through the use of tools and equipment. Certainly there is still a slightly vague line where improper use of a tool could cause harm to someone else. You might crash into someone on a skateboard and hurt them a bit but the odds of causing them serious injury are minimal.
Guns are a controversial point of contention which is mostly based on the intended purpose of guns in general rather than that of any given individual. I am against guns, I have no desire to shoot one or own one however I have no sound argument to use against the ownership and use of guns. Not being allowed to own a gun is the denial of a freedom, while this is a freedom I personally do not desire it would be ignorant of me to impose this view on others. There are many practical and recreational uses for guns and with my high value assigned to freedom I would be hypocritical to renounce guns based on my prejudices. The common argument against ownership of guns seems rather insubstantial, that the allowance of people to own guns increases the amount they are used to harm people. The gun is just a tool, the intention to use it maliciously is all the person and banning guns does little to change a persons intent, only the manner in which they may exact this. Banning guns is overlooking the root of the problem of gun crime ( which is just a problem of crime) and simultaneously removing the freedoms of those that have no ill intent. This is going off topic a little as I have stated dangerous freedoms are not about those tools which are dangerous if used maliciously. Guns fall into both categories; those tools that make for good weapons to exact malicious intent and those tools like cars that are inherently quite dangerous to use for others in the vicinity. The question regarding dangerous tools is how we can maximise the allowable usage of them while minimising the risk to others which I shall come to shortly.
Drugs come in many guises from medical use to recreational use and now even performance enhancing uses. Some are prescription only, some are illegal, some have age restrictions and others are not even really given credit for being a drug and treated like any other commodity. Different cultures and religions have slightly different takes one what is acceptable and what is not but overall the consensus is pretty aligned worldwide. Alcohol is one of the most variable in its treatment by different cultures and also one of the most consumed drugs. The arguments against recreational drug usage differ somewhat to those concerning tools and animals. They are not focused around the effects they have on others directly very much. You do not frequently hear people saying that the use of LSD is bad because there is a chance someone under the influence would attack someone they otherwise would not. The arguments are either superficial and/or macroscopic such as illegal drug usage brings crime to an area. This is as circular an argument as you could wish for as, rather obviously, if you criminalize an activity then the areas associated with that activity will have higher crime rates. Another common argument against recreational drug use is the harm that usage can cause a person (which varies tremendously from drug to drug). This argument holds little weight with me as it it rather like saying we cannot do anything dangerous. Lots of extreme activities and sports are much more likely to result in the injury of the partaking person than drug use would be.
Rather than the dangers of drugs to health people might argue against the compulsive nature of them and that once addicted the freedom of choice is lost. This is a trickier argument but does not apply across the board with drugs. Some are not addictive at all, some are physically addictive, some are only addictive to a portion of people and most can become psychologically addictive to those with the appropriate dispositions. As far as I am concerned only those which can cause a physical addiction in people are those which can be said to be the root cause of denying freedoms as a result of compulsion. These drugs should be treated with greater caution by society and there should be more effort to educate about the dangers. It seems counter-intuitive however to deny a person the freedom to choose to do something that in turn might deny their freedoms. (by inference of this argument you can correctly conclude I am also in favour of euthanasia, which is the only place I have found my moral arguments to differ from those of Kant) While we should take note of the issues concerning health and drug use and their addictive properties and take every measure to protect against them in society I don't see these arguments as any reason to prohibit drug use of any kind.
The strongest argument against recreational drug use in society is the loss in productivity one could potentially link with drug usage. Most recreational drugs make people unable to perform tasks optimally (or even close to) while under the influence, and often for a duration afterwards too. Some are rumoured to be so good as to make real life seem unexciting thus giving people a sense of apathy towards society. While I am sure plenty of studies could link drug usage with all sorts of things that are detrimental to society I think that they are only the result of the social conditions and systems and not the drugs themselves. If drugs were legalized crime would diminish as the system would support the recreational drug economy and so it would not need to police itself. I have no proof of this as there are no studies that are not biased by society as it now stands. Should it be found that upon legalizing all drugs that society was suffering under the weight of unemployed, unhealthy and apathetic people with increasing drug usage then we would have at our disposal more reasonable and well founded arguments in favour of denying the freedom to use them. Most legal systems operate with the policy of innocent until proven guilty and I see no reason not to approach dangerous freedoms in the same way. To remain with the legal analogies I feel it is also our duty to ensure there is no reasonable doubt as to the damaging effects of drugs on society prior to giving up on the defence of them and relinquishing personal freedoms.
There are two ways to look at the economic cost of drug use and they are the monetary and the labour costs. The direct monetary cost upon society is one way and it accounts for damage cause by drunk people and money spent in the health service to tend to people with drug related problems etc. A figure can be arrived at which accounts for the cost of drug use in society, this can easily be matched by taxation upon drugs as it already is to a large extent. This does not mean that labours are no longer required in order to clean up after the recreational drug use but it does mean that it is not causing a net loss to the rest of society and its economies. If drug revenue (or to describe a better way, money flowing out from the drug economy in to others) equals or exceeds the social cost then there is nothing to complain about. Those who wish to partake in drug use would be covering the social ills with their own labours. This would remove those labours from society in that they would not be advancing science or building infrastructure however this is no different to any luxury commodity in society. Unless it is found reasonable to ban any labour inefficient luxury in society then provided the drug market is not a net drain on other areas of society there is no moral grounds to prevent it.
Having argued that in an ideal world there is no reason to deny people the freedom to play with guns and cars, have powerful animals and take recreational drugs on the basis of maximising freedoms our task is now to describe a method by which society can safeguard these freedoms most effectively. The approach society has taken towards controlling the use of dangerous tools is along the right lines, although a little heavy on the bureaucracy, and may be applied to the the ownership and use of dangerous animals and the use of drugs. The driving licence is as close to the perfect example as we are able to find. It relates specifically to the task of driving and the use of vehicles and is something that must be earned through demonstrating appropriate proficiency. Essentially society gives privileges to people who obtain a driving licence as the earning of that licence allows society the trust and confidence to offer that benefit to the licence holder. Any misuse of that trust allows the privileges to be revoked or suspended. There are many kinds of vehicles and applications for them and licenses have evolved to reflect this with extra requirements for those that are more demanding or come with greater responsibility. It is a pragmatic approach to group as many similar kinds of tool into one category to ease the complexity however it is also wise to ensure provision is given to all kinds of use and variation in tool so as to best prepare people and protect against accidents. A balance of these two pragmatic approaches to licensing dangerous freedoms would need to be arrived at through trial and error. This is great so long as any changes do not only add to the volume of legislation but also make an effort to remain streamlined and manageable.
I do not really need to spend any time discussing how a licence to use dangerous tools could be done as it already is. People learn the theory and practise the use to an acceptable standard at which point they are tested. Should they succeed they obtain the appropriate licence and are free to use the tool in question. All licensing must be malleable so as to move with the times both in terms of advancing technology and cultural developments. I cannot predict how animal ownership might look in several hundred years other that presuming it will remain similar. Regardless of this I can show roughly how it could look in the present and we can use our common sense to apply this to any changes that might arise.
Although cats and fish are very different animals I think it is pretty reasonable to encompass most species that are cat sized or smaller (with exceptions for things that are poisonous) into one group which is a license that could be earned while at school much like the cycling proficiency test (which never seemed to have any real official use in the UK other than pleasing schools). The small animal care licence would simply cover the basics of how to feed, clean, handle and so forth. More emphasis would be given to the more demanding animals such as cats. The popularity of animals as pets would also determine the emphasis given in this large group licence. Dogs are sufficiently dangerous, popular and specific enough to demand a licence just for them. This licence would involve a practical test as well as understanding some basic things about dogs (like the separate driving theory and practical tests). The practical aspect would be pretty informal with the aim of educating people rather than testing them and to give new dog owners the chance to spend time with dogs under the supervision of someone who understands how to treat them well. The theory tests would also not be aimed at catching people out or forcing them to commit to memory lots of text and rules but to get people familiar with the basics. Essentially then the licenses for animal ownership are very similar to driving licenses or other tool licenses. They are both prerequisites for use and/or ownership, they both involve a test to demonstrate proficiency which has both practical and theory aspects, they both require a little effort on the part of those trying to obtain licences to learn and practice a little prior to the tests and they may be rescinded as a result of improper use. The difference is only in how strenuous the testing and learning must be which should be related to the potential risks. This is why small animal care and cycling proficiencies can and could be done by children while still at school and take far less time to obtain than a pilots licence or a gun licence. Getting each separate licence, whether it be a group one or very specific, to be the appropriate length and challenge would be done through trial and error with good use of common sense.
Licenses for drug usage are a little harder to enforce and a little trickier when it comes to revoking privileges. The obtaining of the licence would be more straightforward than tools or animals as it each would require less theory in order to prepare people for them and the practical side of it would simply be a supervised trial sampling of the drug in question. The trial would allow people to experience the drug in a safe environment and observe any bad reactions. The problem is then how does society make these licences relevant after they have prepared people via the obtaining of them. Any attempts to rescind a license will only encourage a black market to arise where people can purchase drugs even without a licence. With the physically addictive drugs it would also be irresponsible of society to remove access from an addict. While I think honest drug education to the extent of a supervised experience of the drug is a huge benefit to society regardless of the drug laws it greatly reduces the significance of having achieved this via a licence if that licence is of little relevance itself. People learn best with incentive and so although drug education could still be done at schools it would have more impact if it actually related to the thing in question. At school there is no incentive to learn skills outside of exams.
Having established it is desirable to educate people about drugs in society and that this education will be best received if directly linked to obtaining that privilege it is time to return to the problem of making a drug licence meaningful once obtained. Certainly revoking them will only serve to increase the crime in society and so the role of the licence should be three different things. It should allow monitoring of drug usage, a mechanism to obtain support and degrees of convenience regarding the obtaining and use of drugs. The monitoring aspect doesn't relate much to the individual but would be of great use in tracking any crime and would also offer a wealth of data to be put to use in improving society further. The support side of it would be much like rehabilitation and could offer help dealing with addiction and potentially even a welfare minimal quantity of physically addictive drugs to addicts who were having financial difficulties. Having the support linked in with the licence would greatly encourage users to respect the terms of the licence. The most important side of the control would be the convenience factor. While it would be counter productive to entirely revoke all benefits of the licence it would be possible to make the obtaining and using of drugs less convenient, if only for periods of time. An example would be a person found to have done some bad things while drunk may as part of their penalty no longer be allowed to be drunk, purchase or consume alcohol in public places for a time. They would still be allowed to drink but would have to get their beverages from a shop and consume them in a private place. Potentially upper limits could be imposed on allowable quantities however this would also require great care so as not to spark off a large black market. I think regardless of how careful you are there will always be some people with reason to go outside the normal channels and as such there will always be a black market however by doing things sensibly this can be minute rather than commonplace. It would also be far easier to detect criminal activity with a well monitored market as licenses would allow.
The three groups of dangerous freedoms are a curious study in their own right. The arguments for or against them in society from a moral or philosophical point of view are basically identical however each group is treated differently with seemingly little logic beyond historical tradition. The ownership and use of tools is regulated sensibly and for the most part how I see it should be done in a utopian society. The ownership of animals is very lax in control even given the relative difference in danger posed by animals and cars or guns (the animals in this instance also have the argument of deserving a higher degree of ownership and care that inanimate tools but this does not relate to the freedoms of other people). On the other hand drug usage is far more controlled that tool usage in societies and is at the extreme opposite of animal control in this regard. I would use this as an example of how our societies tend towards systems that evolve easily out of those pre-dating them rather than logic or efficiency.
The crux of this essay is to show that we can maximise freedoms in society outside of criminal intentions. The legal system is in place to protect people (and their freedoms) against the ill will of others but it is not entirely appropriate to deal with the incompetence of others. Education is the only real solution to this and therefore maximising the effectiveness of that education by linking it to real tangible benefits associated with that education is the best way to increase the net freedom. While discussing this with my exceedingly liberal Engels I came under attack for suggesting I could increase freedom by imposing systems, rules and requirements which themselves diminish freedoms. The best analogy I have to show how this is the case if I have failed to demonstrate it sufficiently through the arguments in this essay would be to liken it to the application of breaks prior to taking a fast corner in a car so as to be able to have the fastest possible speeds.
