The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible - Bastiat Institute

The state shall not
make or impose
any law which shall
abridge the right of
any citizen to follow
any occupation or
profession of his or
her choice.
Proposed by Rose
and Milton Friedman
You own your life.
Extract from
Jonathan’s Principles
Chapter 34 • Vice Versa
Brainstorming
• Are people being harmed in this episode?
• Who and why?
• Is the law contradictory concerning these
activities? Why?
• What is the difference between disapproving
of behaviour and outlawing it?
• Should the state control radio, TV, or the
press?
• What ethical issues are involved in the use of
force?
Commentary
An activity should only be declared a crime
when the action would harm others. If the law
declares an activity to be a crime, then it should
apply to everyone.
Crimes that do not hurt anybody are called
“victimless crimes”. It’s a crime in most societies
to hit another person on the head. However, it is
a victimless crime if you chose to hit yourself
on the head. It would also be a victimless crime
if I gave or sold you permission to hit me on the
head. In such a case, as with a boxing match,
neither of us (neither the buyer nor the seller) is
an unwilling victim.
A boxing match might horrify some
observers and they might even consider such an
activity immoral. If those observers demanded
a law to be passed against boxing, then the
participants, both the buyer and the seller are
equal participants.
Religious laws on moral behaviour are
different from state laws. Religious laws only
apply to people who choose to practise that
particular religion. These religious laws are
beyond the sphere of state laws. Frequently,
however, people feel that their religious morality
ought to apply to everyone in the state. They have
two ways to accomplish this: 1) by persuasion and
207