The Harm Principle Modernized (Pt. I)

John Stuart Mill was a political theorist concerned with the scope of government power and authority over the individual. The subject of Mill’s Essay On Liberty, as he states at the outset, “is not the so-called Liberty of the Will…but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (On Liberty, Pg.7). One of the first political theorists to witness the development of modern-day democracy, Mill was writing during a time when government was being asked to address a greater number of economic and social problems. Mill’s belief was that government’s proper role was to protect and expand liberty – describing liberty in terms of the capacity of individuals to make free choices. The problem Mill seeks to solve is when, if ever, it is appropriate for government to constrain individual choice and therefore limit liberty. His answer was that government could legitimately restrain individual choice when the action of one individual inflicted harm on another individual – when, that is, one person’s liberty infringed on another person’s liberty.

This is Mill’s “The Harm Principle”. Mill suggests that individuals are rational and will make decisions based on their best interest. Therefore, each individual has the right to act as he or she pleases, so long as their actions do not affect others. However, if one’s actions harm the liberties of another, government has the right to intervene and protect these liberties that are protected democracy.

What if “The Harm Principle” were applied today? The actions of oil companies affect the health of not just the environment, but of humans. Therefore governments have the right to intervene and protect the liberties of the people.

In fact, the United Nations may be working to put “The Harm Principle” into affect. The UN recognizes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression as threats against peace that legitimize prosecution through the international criminal court. On September 30th, during a number of mock trials, the UN proceeded to test another crime against peace – Ecocide. Ecocide is defined as, “The extensive damage, destruction to or loss of ecosystems of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.” (The Guardian - Damian Carrington's Blog on the Ecocide Test Trial)

The UN took the test to the UK Supreme Court, using real lawyers and judges and a jury consisting of the public. The trials were cases that were similar to real-time debates, including the extraction of oil from Canada’s tar sands, an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and fracking for natural gas in Nigeria.

In the end, the UK Supreme Court found two verdicts guilty and one not guilty. The CEO’s of companies extracting oil from Canada’s tar sands were convicted of ecocide and the destruction or loss of ecosystem. It is “The Harm Principle” at work! A company’s actions are affecting the liberties and health of another’s actions – the UN took the role as the body of government who can jump in and protect the liberties of those affected.

Where is the United States in protecting our liberties, protecting us from the harmful practices of drilling for oil? Part II will explain where America is in “The Harm Principle” and how the oil industry has taken root in the economy and throughout our government.