Waverley Local Plan: Issues and Options Consultation Response

Image credit: Waverley Borough Council

Waverley Borough Council (WBC) have recently issued notice of a consultation on “Issues and Options” for a proposed update to the Waverley Local Plan. I am responding to this, first, as a resident of Waverley (near Charterhouse School). And second, as campaign manager for the Godalming and Ash branch of Reform UK.

For those not already aware of this consultation, the notice is here: [[1]]. The issues and options document is at [[2]]. And responses can be submitted via [[3]]. The closing date for responses is Monday December 8^th.

Context

The reason given for the update is “to ensure conformity with national planning policy following advice from the Planning Advisory Service.” So, this is top-down policy, being dictated to local councils by central government. The relevant legislation is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, first introduced by Labour just eight months ago. It cleared its last stage in the House of Lords on 25^th November: [[4]]. One headline is “a national target of building an additional 1.5 million homes [in England] by 2029.”

WBC is due to be abolished in 2027, and subsumed with five other councils (Guildford, Surrey Heath, Woking, Runnymede, Spelthorne) into a West Surrey unitary authority. Because of this, it seems rather odd that this is being done now, to come into effect in 2028. If all six councils must conform to national planning policies, why not pool their resources into a single plan for West Surrey, rather than doing the same thing six times over? It looks as if Labour are in a huge hurry over this, just as the Tories were over getting the May 2025 Surrey local elections postponed. The cynic in me asks why.

As to the characteristics of Waverley as a borough, the document refers to it, rightly, as “a predominantly rural area.” In which “over 70% of residents own their homes.” And it is “challenging for residents on lower incomes to afford to buy or rent a home.” Moreover, there is “a reliance on the use of the private car as the main means of transport by residents.” Unsurprising, because Waverley has a low population density compared to the rest of Surrey; indeed, slightly below the average for England.

Overview of my response

First, I’ll make some general comments on the following issues:

1)     The home building target.

2)     The objectives the document sets. It appears to put something it calls “environmental wellbeing” before the well-being of the people of Waverley.

3)     The emphasis on green policies, that are not in the interests of the people.

Following the general comments, I’ll address the specific consultation questions.

The new housing target

Warning to the mathematically challenged: there are numbers in this section!

In Waverley

Waverley’s estimated population at mid-2024 was 134,284 [[5]]. Its area is 345 square kilometres, and the 2024 population density was 389 residents per km². The average number of people per household is 2.44 [[6]], meaning there are about 55,000 residential properties.

The new housing target is 29,160 over 20 years, or 1,458 per year. This represents an increase of 53% in both number of homes and population.

About 80% of Waverley land is protected from development, either as Green Belt or National Landscape. So, the great majority of these 29,160 new homes need to be built on 20% of the land: just 69 km². The population density in those places would have to go up by more than 1,000 per km²! I agree with Waverley Council that the target is not a realistic one.

In the UK as a whole

If replicated across the whole UK, this 53% increase would make the population 106 million by 2044. But national estimates currently project a UK population of 76 million in 2044. So, it looks as if Waverley is being singled out for something of a “stuffing.” Or that the government is misleading us, and its real intentions are nearer 100+ million than 76.

A few months ago, I wrote about the UK population increase since 2000: [[7]]. I related it to the number of immigrants needed to keep the “potential support ratio” – of retired people to people of working age – constant. (136 million by 2050, say the UN). I concluded that successive governments since 2000 have been aiming for this extreme scenario, or as near as they can get. They don’t want the welfare state to go bankrupt on their watch.

This explains why whenever a government, Tory or Labour, promises to rein in immigration, it never happens. Immigration rates always go up, not down. This is a political time-bomb.

Objectives and Priorities

The document shows, on page 10, a list of draft objectives. It is divided into three parts: environmental, economic and social well-being. In that order.

We see some typical green mantras. Investment “to support and enhance nature recovery.” New housing with “access to jobs and services by non-car modes of travel.” “Delivering a net zero future.” And structures “resilient to the changing climate.” Lower down, we see: Premises in “sustainable locations.” “Small clusters of green businesses.” “Active and healthy lifestyles.” “Energy efficient new homes.” And “Walking, cycling and public transport are genuine choices for most residents.” I find myself asking, why are mantras like “sustainable locations” and “non-car modes of travel” seen as more important than the convenience and quality of life of the people of Waverley?

Now, I’m not against wildlife; my view is that, if it doesn’t bother me, I won’t bother it. But why should “stakeholders” (a word I detest) put the interests of wildlife or plants above the interests of people, by expecting us to pay for “biodiversity” or “nature recovery?”

My views on green policies

I take the Enlightenment view that to be lawful, any government must act for the benefit of the people. So, everything it does must be a nett positive to the people. Not just in aggregate, but to every individual among those it is tasked to serve. Thus, no government, at any level, may ever set policies that impose on anyone costs that exceed the nett benefits each of them gets. Everyone who has paid taxes must receive commensurable benefits.

My approach to political policy is objective and evidence-based. And I find cost versus benefit analysis, from the point of view of the people affected, to be of vital importance. When I apply this to green policies and arguments for them, I find them very seriously wanting. Virtually all green policies are a major nett negative to large numbers of people, including me.

Sustainability

When I was young, the word “sustainability” meant “ability to endure into the future.” Over the last half century, though, the UN and its fellow-travellers have perverted this into something more like “giving up prosperity today for the sake of future generations.”

This is obviously nonsense. We do not know who these future generations will be, or how close to us in spirit. Further, we have paid taxes, and they have not. So, government ought to be satisfying our needs, not those of unknowns in some unclear future.

It is also my view that centrally planned “sustainable development” can never be sustainable. That isn’t the way we work as a species. By our nature, we do what we can to make our environment of maximum benefit to us. Then, we fix any resulting problems as we find them.

Climate change and “net zero”

The climate does change, and CO₂ from human activities can cause some global warming. But I’ve never seen any hard evidence that this has led to actual problems. I’ve shown at [[8]] that there is no climate crisis, that could objectively justify any political action at all.

I regard net zero policies as not only unachievable and unaffordable, but also unnecessary. The arguments for these policies are not based on evidence, but on scares and hype that have been broadcast for years by organizations such as the Met Office, the BBC and a lot of the mainstream media. Not to mention the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which since 1990 has again and again presented the situation in a far more alarmist way than is warranted by the scientific facts.

As to objective cost-benefit analysis for these policies, a couple of years ago I told, in some detail, the back-story of how the UK government, over decades, has gone out of its way to make sure that no such analysis has ever been done. It’s here: [[9]].

Biodiversity and “nature recovery”

The word “biodiversity” did not even exist before the 1980s. Though a “Convention on Biological Diversity” was one of the agreements at the 1992 Rio “Earth Summit,” the word did not become widely used until the Tories released their “25 Year Environment Plan” in 2018. They subsequently embedded the mantras of “biodiversity net gain” and “nature recovery” in the Environment Act 2021.

The UN has its own counterpart to the IPCC in this area. This is IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). IPBES issued a 2019 report claiming that impacts of human activities were threatening a million species with extinction. But the facts say otherwise: [[10]]. Further, I myself have several times asked environmentalists to name one species to whose extinction I have contributed, and to say what I did, and roughly when, towards that extinction. I’ve never received an answer.

Moreover, it seems to me that the talk of “biodiversity net gain” and “nature recovery” is no more than a switch in the direction of the propaganda; from making unfounded accusations, towards declaiming sound-good mantras. Where is the hard evidence, that proves that these measures are objectively necessary?

Until I see evidence that shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that my own acts have contributed to extinguishing species or in some objective way damaging nature, I refuse to accept any guilt. Nor will I accept any cost to “fix” anything I’m not responsible for!

Air pollution and “clean air”

In the past, air pollution was a real problem. That was exemplified by the Great London Smog of 1952. But, as with climate change, I am not satisfied that the arguments claiming to show that air pollution is a major problem today are either honest or scientific. I wrote about this here: [[11]]. Moreover, I know of no air pollution problems on any road I regularly drive, except perhaps a very short stretch of the A3100 just west of Godalming centre.

There are further similarities with what has happened over biodiversity and climate change. There is a UN agency involved: the World Health Organization (WHO). It has presided over a re-direction of the propaganda, from “air pollution,” via “air quality,” to good-sounding, but ultimately destructive, “clean air” policies.

Moreover, the WHO has been primarily responsible for the culture of arbitrary, collective, ever-tightening and ultimately infeasible limits on what we may do, that has been forced on us over the last 30 years and more. Not only over air pollution, for which the Waverley document quotes the WHO’s latest “guidelines” with almost religious fervour. But also, in its “vision zero” road safety strategy, that has brought ever-reducing speed limits all over our area, particularly on country roads.

Responses to the consultation questions

For those questions to be answered from the perspective of individual settlements, I can speak only for Godalming and Farncombe.

Q5: pros and cons of development approaches?

1)     Development in the 4 main settlements.

a)     Godalming already has a higher population density (2,252 per km²) than Cranleigh, Haslemere or Farnham. It should not be singled out for even more crowding!

b)     Scope for further development close enough to the town centre to allow “more use of sustainable modes of transport” is very limited. The low-hanging fruit – Prime Place, the Atrium, Magna Apartments – is already taken. And such places do nothing to ease housing difficulties for less well-off residents.

c)     Catteshall Lane and The Mill developments have only been achieved by converting office/industrial space to residential use. It would not be sustainable to repeat this.

d)     Significant additions to the Godalming population would put extra pressure on its railway station, and on parking both for it and for shopping and supermarkets.

2)     Development on brownfield sites throughout the borough. This looks to be the least bad of the five options.

3)     Expanding larger centres into the countryside. For Godalming and Farncombe, this has all the drawbacks of approach 1.

4)     Growing smaller villages.

a)     Likely to face significant local opposition.

b)     The council will have to admit that away from the main public transport routes, a car is an essential to live in Waverley.

5)     New settlement. Dunsfold Park is a possible, to combine with approach 2. But why not (tongue firmly in cheek) simply build one high-rise city, to hold 70,000 people? Milton Keynes without cars, perhaps? Of course, you would need to sell the idea to both developers and potential residents. Good luck with that.

Q8: further comment on development?

Quart into pint pot doesn’t go.

Q17: how important is the environment to you?

This whole exercise makes me think that the council is putting something it calls “the environment” up on a pedestal, like some deity to be worshipped. One that makes wildlife and plants more important than human beings. But wildlife and plants don’t pay taxes! So, governments should always put human needs and desires ahead of green nonsense.

As to specifics, places like the Wey canal towpath, Broadwater Park, and the hills surrounding Godalming are surely worth preserving, because of their value to human beings. As is quick, easy, convenient access to wherever each of us needs or wants to go.

Q36: main transport challenges locally?

Context: I used to be a cyclist – I once rode coast-to-coast across North America! But cycling is not practical for someone aged 72, who lives at the top of a steep hill. So, now I am primarily a driver and pedestrian. Though I do ride in a taxi once or twice a week.

1)     As driver:

a)     Far too much parking on through routes, making what should be a two-way traffic flow into alternating one-way (e.g. Chalk Rd, Farncombe end of Nightingale Rd). Worse when the roads have speed-bumps (e.g. Green Lane).

b)     Far too many road works, which far too often close vital roads altogether.

c)     Delays at Farncombe level crossings, even after you have gone over them.

d)     Potholes – though not as bad recently as a couple of years ago.

e)     The sourpusses that want 20mph speed limits, or more chicanes or speed-bumps.

2)     As pedestrian:

a)     Lack of pedestrian crossing(s) on Charterhouse Rd.

b)     Steep hills.

Q38: effectiveness of public transport?

Local public transport has never met, and still fails to meet, my requirements.

1)     At various times, I worked in Shalford, Crawley, Bracknell and Tongham. None of these is accessible time-efficiently by public transport to or from Charterhouse.

2)     Bus 46 is the only public transport that goes within half a mile of my home, or anywhere near its altitude. It’s at best an hourly service, is very slow, is often late, and doesn’t run in the evenings or on Sundays.

3)     To use bus 70/71/72 requires 20 minutes’ walk to/from the nearest bus stop, with a steep climb on the way back.

4)     To use the train without driving to the station requires walking to Farncombe (15 minutes) or Godalming (25 minutes). Both have very steep climbs on the way back.

5)     Public transport is of no use when I have a load to carry. (I play the tuba in a brass band!)

Recently, far from “improving public transport links” around Godalming, the trend has been in the opposite direction. E.G. withdrawal of buses 503 and 523, and re-routing of bus 72 away from Catteshall. And I do not expect any significant improvements in public transport around Godalming in the future, since they could not be commercially justified.

Q39: groups whose transport needs are not adequately met?

Public transport around Godalming does not adequately meet the needs of anyone who:

1)     Lives away from (including above) the major public transport routes, or

2)     Needs to make cross-country journeys, or

3)     Needs to carry loads (including supermarket shopping), or

4)     Is old enough to be no longer able to do “active travel.”

If they (we) couldn’t afford to run a car, they (we) would lose mobility entirely, except for taxis. Which are too expensive to use every day. So, the stated objective of “reducing social isolation and loneliness” isn’t going to happen, if older people in Waverley can no longer afford to drive cars!

Q40: barriers to walking or cycling for daily journeys?

Age and hilliness.

Q52/56: do town and local centre boundaries need to be changed?

For Godalming and Farncombe, no.

Q66/67: climate change and “net zero?”

Since human-caused climate change has never been proven to be a real problem, mitigation and resilience are irrelevant. As to adaptation to weather events, I’d suggest one rule: don’t build on flood plains! (I remember the floods of 1988…)

Q70: allocate sites for renewable energy projects?

No. Windmills are ugly, cause noise that can damage people’s health, kill birds, and can lose blades. How can anyone rational support both biodiversity and on-shore wind power?

Moreover, solar energy doesn’t work at scale in this latitude. Besides which, the intermittency of renewable energy sources causes serious issues for grid reliability, with associated costs. And this, contrary to government narratives, is why electricity prices have gone up and up as the penetration of renewables has increased.

I think this may be a good moment to stop.

---

[[1]] https://www.waverley.gov.uk/council-updates/read-our-latest-news/have-your-say-on-the-future-of-waverley-by-helping-to-shape-a-new-local-plan

[[2]] https://waverley.inconsult.uk/gf2.ti/-/1793410/265422181.1/PDF/-/Waverley%20Local%20Plan%20Consultation%20Document%20_Issues%20and%20Options%202025_.pdf

[[3]] https://www.waverley.gov.uk/services/planning-and-building/planning-strategies-and-policies/local-plan/new-local-plan 

[[4]] https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1940955/planning-infrastructure-bill-clears-house-lords-set-gain-royal-assent

[[5]] https://www.surreyi.gov.uk/dataset/population-estimates-em0ym

[[6]] https://www.surreyi.gov.uk/census-2021/census-2021-household-characteristics/

[[7]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/replacement-migration-is-it-a-solution-to-declining-and-ageing-populations-by-neil-lock/

[[8]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/why-there-is-no-climate-crisis-by-neil-lock/

[[9]] https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-five-the-case-of-the-missing-cost-benefit-analysis/

[[10]] https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/blog/f/mass-extinction-lie-exposed-life-is-thriving

[[11]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/a-brief-history-of-air-pollution-in-the-uk-by-neil-lock/

How should government behave towards the governed?

Image credit: Andy Feliciotti, Unsplash

Recently, I addressed the question: what functions should government perform? Based on the ideas of John Locke, I came up with a fairly conventional list. A legislative, with highly circumscribed powers. A police force or equivalent. A defensive and retaliatory military. Impartial, objective and honest courts of justice, with the associated support services. A quality control function. And a fair and just system of financing its functions.

Today, I’ll look at a question at right angles to that one. Namely, how should government behave towards those whose lives, rights and liberties it is tasked with defending?

Locke’s answers

Locke himself gave some answers to this question.

First, every law a government makes must be for the good of the governed. And it must never go against, or push beyond the bounds of, the standard of behaviour natural to human beings: “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Moreover, any law must be for the good of every individual among the governed, who behaves up to the standard of human nature. And every law must be made known to all, and the case for it explained. So, anyone affected by it can understand it, and why and how it benefits them.

Second, criminal penalties may only be imposed on those that attack the lives, persons, liberties or possessions of others. And civil penalties are only justified as reparations for quantifiable damage caused. Outside these situations, government must never damage the life, person, liberties or possessions of any individual among the governed.

Third, all judges’ decisions must be impartial and unbiased.

Fourth, payment for government must be as far as possible in proportion to the benefits each individual receives from the protections it delivers. In practice, that means in proportion to the individual’s total wealth. Government should never take anything more than this.

Fifth, government must never go beyond its remit of securing the lives, persons, liberties and possessions of the governed. Nor may it ever attack anyone who behaves up to human standards.

Sixth, government must recognize that all its power ultimately derives from the people it governs, and must never seek to transfer any of that power to any other parties.

Enlightenment values

I have written much about the Enlightenment, and the values it has brought to us since John Locke initially sparked it. Back in 2021, I went so far as to make a list of these values. Here it is: “The use and celebration of human reason. Rational inquiry, and the pursuit of science. Greater tolerance in religion. Individual liberty and independence; freedom of thought and action. The pursuit of happiness. Natural rights, natural equality of all human beings, and human dignity. The idea that society exists for the individual, not the individual for society. Constitutional government, for the benefit of, and with the consent of, the governed. The rule of law; that is, those with government power, such as lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges, should have to obey the same rules as everyone else. An ideal of justice which, per Kant, allows that ‘the freedom of the will of each can coexist together with the freedom of everyone in accordance with a universal law.’ A desire for human progress, and a rational optimism for the future.”

It's interesting to see how these values might be incorporated into the practices of an enlightened government today.

Reason

Reason is, simply put, thinking, understanding and forming judgements in a logical way. And “reasonable” means fair, sensible and showing sound judgement. A reasonable government, then, would be one that makes its decisions rationally and objectively, as well as impartially.

Rational inquiry and science

Rational inquiry takes reason forwards, in order to reach conclusions that match reality. Science is a particular kind of rational inquiry; when done properly, it is a method for finding out truths about our surroundings. A government that values rational inquiry and science would ensure that all its decisions are based on evidence, reason and, where appropriate, honest science.

Religious tolerance

A government that values religious tolerance would not use its powers to impose on anyone any particular religion or philosophy. Such as Christianity, Islam, atheism, socialism, fascism or environmentalism. Nor would it tolerate those that seek to impose on others any such religion or philosophy. Nor would it prohibit the practices of any religion or philosophy, unless they violate the standard of behaviour natural to human beings.

Liberty and independence

Individual liberty and individual independence are Enlightenment values. Those who want them (which is most of us), and who earn them by behaving up to human standards, deserve to enjoy them. Government should never discriminate against those who seek these things.

Closely related is the idea that any society, most of all a Lockean political society that seeks to justify the formation of a government, must act for the benefit of its members. All its members. If such a society fails to do so, and government treats any of the governed as if their good is subordinate to that of the government, or of some collective “society,” or of a political agenda, that government is failing to meet the purposes for which it was formed.

Natural rights

The natural rights, which form the flip side of Locke’s summary of the natural law of humanity, are: Life (in the sense of not being murdered). Security of person (not being attacked). Liberty, or having all your fundamental rights and freedoms recognized. And not to have your property violated or taken away.

To these the US Declaration of Independence adds the right to pursue happiness. And the first few amendments to the US constitution add more yet.

First amendment: Freedom of religious belief and practice. Freedom of speech, freedom to write and disseminate ideas and opinions. Right to peaceful assembly. Right to protest grievances, and to demand their rectification.

Second amendment: Right to self-defence, both individually and in association with others. Right to means of self-defence sufficient to implement that right.

Third amendment: Right to exclude unwanted individuals from your property.

Fourth amendment: Right not to have yourself, your property whether fixed or movable, or your records searched or seized, without all of: Reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. Pre-specification of where is to be searched, and what for. And due process of law.

Fifth amendment: No criminal punishment without a conviction under due process of law. No second jeopardy for the same accusation. No compulsion to self-incrimination. No deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. No taking of property without just compensation.

Sixth amendment: Right to speedy and public trial of all criminal accusations. Right to determination by impartial tribunal. Right to be informed of the specifics of, and reasons for, the accusations. Right to cross-examine, directly or through an agent, the witnesses against you. Right to all the guarantees necessary for your defence.

Eighth amendment: No excessive bail demands. No excessive fines. No cruel or unusual punishments.

Ninth and tenth amendments: Any list of rights is not necessarily exhaustive. And any powers not explicitly delegated to government remain with the people.

Thirteenth amendment: No slavery or involuntary servitude.

Natural equality of human beings, and the rule of law

Equality among human beings was considered natural in the Enlightenment. In Locke’s words: “all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” So, there can be no “divine right of kings” (or anyone else) to rule over others, or to use political power for their own purposes.

Moreover, the Enlightenment idea of the rule of law implies that everyone must obey the same rules. In my terms, this is equivalent to the ethical equality of all human beings. What is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa.

Human dignity

The idea of human dignity implies that every human being deserves to be treated as a human being. Not as a mere animal, or as a resource to be taxed or otherwise exploited, or as merely a member of some “society,” or as no more than a number or a pattern of bits in a database.

If you are a human being – that is, if you behave as a human being – then you must be treated as an individual, with the full measure of dignity and respect which are due to a human being.

Government – constitutional, for the benefit of and with the consent of the governed

For government to be constitutional, its powers must be clearly defined and delineated. They must be known to all the governed. And they may never be exceeded.

That government must be for the benefit of the governed means not only that everything it seeks to do must be a benefit to the governed – to every human being among the governed. But also, that the costs the governed are expected to pay for government, either in aggregate or as individuals, must never exceed the value of the benefits government provides to them, either in aggregate or as individuals. Government has no right “to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish” the governed, or anyone among them. Nor may it unjustly take wealth away, or re-distribute wealth to itself or its favourites. Nor may it “harass or subdue” the governed “to the arbitrary and irregular commands” of those in power.

That government must have the consent of the governed means that its power has been delegated by the people, and continues only with their consent. Thus, where a government fails to fulfil the purposes for which it was created, the governed have the right to take back their consent. As Locke put it: “All power given with trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it.”

Justice

In my earlier essay, I gave you Richard Hooker’s 16^th-century conception of justice, which Locke adopted, and which is not far from my “condition in which each individual is to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.” This view of justice, I assert, does satisfy Kant’s condition as quoted above.

Desire for human progress

As I outlined in an earlier essay about our history, the Enlightenment was a hugely progressive phase of our development as a species. It’s not surprising, then, that a desire for human progress was an Enlightenment value. So, no government founded on Enlightenment principles would ever put an obstacle in the way of human progress towards a better world.

Rational optimism

Rational optimism, say psychologists, is a “belief that things can and will improve, grounded in realistic expectations and practical action.”

Governments today usually seek not to improve our lives, but to drain us and to violate our rights and freedoms. And their goals are often nonsensical, unrealistic or both. This makes many people pessimistic about at least the short-term future. A government founded on Enlightenment principles, on the other hand, would always aim to improve the lives of the people, would be realistic in its goals and expectations, and would be careful to restrict its plans to things which are both feasible and cost-effective.

Human rights

“Human rights” can be a source of major disputes. Many proposed rights – life, liberty, security of person, and prohibition of torture, for example – are accepted as real rights by almost everyone. In contrast, there are extreme collectivists and moral relativists, that reject any idea of individual human rights. And there are those that would arbitrarily add “rights,” that have no more rationale than their own political agendas.

I myself strongly value the idea of human rights. And I regard each individual as having earned his or her human rights, by respecting the equal rights of others. But I do not accept all proposed “rights” as being real rights. I see a “right” as invalid, if to satisfy it requires violating the rights of others. Social security is an example of such a “right.” I also reject any proposed “right” without a moral standard which, if measured up to by everyone, would deliver it. Such cases include a “right” not to be offended, and “rights” to “clean air” and a “stable climate.”

Types of rights

As I explained in an earlier essay on ethics, rights and obligations, I see three main types of valid human rights:

1)     Fundamental rights, resulting from obligations to refrain from doing something bad.

2)     Rights of non-impedance, resulting from obligations not to put any obstacle in the way of others’ freedom to do something they want to.

3)     Procedural rights. These guide the procedures used in confrontational situations, including between government and the people it is supposed to serve.

In addition, I see a fourth type, the somewhat weaker “expectations.” These result from obligations, that positively require behaving in a convivial and civilized way.

The UN Declaration

The United Nations is today an enemy of humanity, and of our freedoms and prosperity. Given that, it pains me to have to use the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights as the best available specification of modern human rights. But it’s the least bad I have.

I shall list a selection of rights from the UN Declaration below. Where the declaration uses the word “arbitrary,” I will replace it by “without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing.”

Examples of fundamental rights

Dignity, which means being treated as a human being. Life, in the sense of not being murdered. Security of person. No enslavement. No torture. No cruel, unusual or inhuman treatment or punishment. No arrest, detention or exile without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No interference (including surveillance) with privacy, family, home or correspondence, without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No attacks on honour and reputation without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No coercion into marriage. Right to own property alone or with others. No deprivation of property without reasonable suspicion of real wrongdoing. No compulsion to belong to any society. No destruction of rights or freedoms.

Examples of rights of non-impedance

Liberty of action and choice. Freedom of movement and residence inside a state. Freedom to exit a state. Right to seek asylum. Freedom to return. Right to marry. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Freedom of opinion, expression and communication. Right to peaceful assembly and association. Right to take part in government, directly or indirectly. Free choice of employment. Right to choose education for your children.

Examples of procedural rights

(These rights are to be respected in confrontational situations, including those involving government).

Recognition as a person before the law. Equality before the law. Remedy for violations of your rights. Fair, public hearing by an independent, impartial tribunal. Presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Public trial. All guarantees necessary for your defence. No retrospective penalties. “Will of the people,” and their consent, as the basis of all authority.

Aspirations

The Declaration also includes a wish-list of what I call “aspirations.” Among these are: Right to work. Social security. Protection against unemployment. Equal pay for equal work. Just and favourable remuneration. Right to reasonable rest and leisure. Right to form trade unions. A minimum standard of living. Special treatment for mothers and children. “Free”, “compulsory” education. Right to participate in cultural life. Intellectual property rights. A social and international order that underpins these rights and freedoms.

Some of these cannot be implemented without adversely impacting the rights of others. But many of them are valid, and can be far better re-stated as rights of non-impedance. For example, the “right to work” becomes a right not to be impeded in seeking work.

Expectations

In an earlier essay on the Nolan Principles of Public Life, I gave a list of expectations, which individuals can reasonably have of how government should behave towards them. It may be summarized as follows:

1)     Selflessness: Everyone in government must act solely in the interests of the governed. (And as Locke told us, that means in the interests of every individual among them).

2)     Integrity: No-one in government may allow themselves to be inappropriately influenced.

3)     Objectivity: All government decisions must be impartial, fair, unbiased, and based on merit and the best evidence available.

4)     Accountability: Those in government must be held accountable for the effects on the governed of what they do.

5)     Openness: Government must act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner, and may not withhold information from the governed without very good cause.

6)     Honesty: All holders of government office must be truthful. (Also candid, straightforward and sincere).

7)     Leadership: Everyone in government must treat the governed with respect. And they must practise whatever they preach.

In conclusion

This essay has concentrated on how government should behave, not on how governments today actually do behave. Rather than attempt to summarize all the points I have made above, I’ll simply ask a question: How well do today’s governments measure up to the standards we ought to be able to expect of them?

Don’t laugh.

What should be the functions of government?

(Image credit: Andy Feliciotti, Unsplash)

“Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws, with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good.”

–       John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, §3

Today, I will ask the question: What functions ought government to perform? And I will aim to answer this in a Lockean manner.

I shall begin with the paragraph at the head of this essay, the first substantive statement in John Locke’s Second Treatise. I shall fill out the picture with more of his ideas. And at the end, I shall list the core functions of government, as they ought to be in a system based on Locke’s political ideas.

Laws

According to Locke, a government has a right to make laws. But not just any old laws. They must not be “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men.” They must not represent “contrary and hidden interests put into words.”

Instead, “the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” “Laws ought to be designed for no other end ultimately than the good of the people.” And laws are “only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.”

That means, in my terms, that laws must defend the freedoms of the governed, never destroy or damage those freedoms. They must always aim at the good of the people; that is, the good of every human being worth the name among them. And these laws may only interpret or explicate the natural law of humanity. Which, in Locke’s paraphrase, is: “being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Laws must not contradict this natural law, violate it, or push beyond its bounds.

Such laws, if properly conceived, justly designed, fully debated and consented to by the people, can provide one of the things, which Locke identifies as missing if there is no government. That is, “an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them.”

Penalties and reparations

In Locke’s view, government laws can carry penalties if broken, up to and including death. This may seem over the top for laws “for the regulating and preserving of property.” But Locke saw the individual human being as “proprietor of his own person.” Thus, attacks against the person, including lethal violence, he saw as also attacks on that person’s property. Indeed, he used the word “property” as a general word for “their lives, liberties and estates.”

Locke also countenanced civil-law compensation, in addition to criminal-law penalties. “Besides the crime which consists in violating the laws, and varying from the right rule of reason … there is commonly injury done; in which case, he who hath received any damage has … a particular right to seek reparation from him that hath done it.”

Enforcement and defence

Government has a right of “employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws.” That is, requiring those who subscribe to the political society either to be part of, or to pay for, a force to restrain and, where appropriate, to punish those that break such laws. This would correspond, in modern terms, to a police force, together with the right to make a citizen’s arrest.

Government may also use that force “in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury.” As above, I see this as levying an obligation either to be part of, or to pay for, a force to be used for military defence against aggressions by political states.

Judges and punishments

Locke gives his view of the functions of government in a short chapter beginning at §123. While not explicitly named in the quote at the head of this essay, one of the functions listed there is “a known and indifferent [impartial] judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law.” In today’s terms, this means courts of justice, which can arbitrate disputes, and try those accused of crimes. This is another of the things Locke saw as missing if there is no government.

Another function listed is “power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution.” This corresponds, in today’s terms, to the services, such as prisons, which support the courts of justice.

Justice

Locke says remarkably little in his Two Treatises about justice, or what it actually is. He does say: “Justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him.”

But for the most part, he delegates the job to Richard Hooker, a cleric of a century before. Who says: “If I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should show greater measure of love to me than they have by me showed unto them; my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposes on me a natural duty of bearing toward them fully the like affection.” So, Hooker’s, and thus Locke’s, conception of justice is not so far away from my “condition in which each individual is to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.”

Paying for government

“It is true,” says Locke, “governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it.”

I read this as meaning that each individual should pay, for any period in which government defends his assets, in proportion to the benefit he receives from that protection. And I read “out of his estate his proportion” as saying that how much he is expected to pay should be in direct proportion to his total wealth. This seems fair to me, as I would expect the cost of defending anyone’s life and wealth to be in close proportion to the amount of that wealth.

Further, government “must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people given by themselves or their deputies.” But the deputies or “representatives” themselves are bound to act in the interests of the people. “For all power given with trust for attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those who gave it.” That means that if our supposed “representatives” agree to taxes that go against, or are used for purposes that go against, the good of the people, they have forfeited our trust, and may no longer act, or claim to act, on our behalf.

The public good

“All this,” says Locke, must be “only for the public good.” He defines this in the First Treatise as “the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be provided for.”

Later, he puts his case more strongly. “The power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one’s property by providing against those three defects above mentioned that made the state of Nature so unsafe and uneasy. And so, whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent [impartial] judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety and public good of the people.”

I interpret all this as meaning that if someone keeps to the natural law of humanity – “no-one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” – then government must never harm him in any of those ways. Nor may it do anything outside its remit of securing everyone’s life, health, liberty and possessions. Nor may it judge any case in any way that is not totally unbiased, objective and honest. Nor may it use force outside its bounds, except in defence or retaliation.

No transfer of power

Locke writes: “The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others.” Thus, this power always rests ultimately with the people, and cannot be transferred, either explicitly or implicitly, to any external organization such as the EU or UN.

To sum up Locke’s view

1)     Government can make laws. But these laws must always aim at the good of the people. And when put into effect, they must defend the lives, liberties and possessions of the governed, never destroy or damage them.

2)     Government laws may only interpret or explicate the natural law of humanity, which forbids everyone to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. They must never contradict it, violate it, or go into areas beyond its bounds.

3)     Government laws can carry penalties if broken.

4)     Government can order reparations for harms done.

5)     Government can use force to restrain and, where appropriate, to punish those that break laws, or fail to pay reparations that it has ordered. Individuals can assist if they are so minded.

6)     Government and individuals can use force to defend or retaliate against military attack.

7)     Payment for government should be in proportion to the wealth of an individual’s estate. No other taxes may be levied without the consent of the governed.

8)     Everything government does must be for the public good. That is, the good of every individual among the governed, as far as it can be achieved by making and enforcing laws common to all.

9)     Government power rests ultimately with the people, and cannot be transferred to external parties.

The core functions of government

Here are the functions of government, as foreseen in John Locke’s political philosophy, but brought up to date in terms of institutions of government today.

1)     A legislative, whose powers are circumscribed by the limitations I set out above.

2)     A police force or equivalent.

3)     A defensive and retaliatory military.

4)     Impartial, objective and honest courts of justice, covering compensatory and penal law.

5)     The support services associated with the courts of justice.

To which, for practical reasons, there should be added:

6)     A quality control system, to ensure that government always acts for the public good.

7)     A fair and just system of financing the other government functions, in which the core payment is in proportion to total wealth, and there are no further taxes without consent.

And that’s it!