Obviously, the pipe-smoker had to enquire why a newcomer should get any preferential treatment by all agreeing to listen to his question and then agreeing to debate it. This was answered with the words, “It is a free country and there is a constitutional right which determines that these freedoms may be applied as and when appropriate.”
In the light of this kind of introduction the unofficial chairman, namely the pipe-smoker, gave his consent for the newcomer to put his subject for discussion on the table. He duly did so and asked, “If all of these various freedoms have been guaranteed to the citizens of the country, why does it not get applied?”
He went on by elaborating that if anybody wanted to express his opinion about somebody else by saying that he does not like him then he may do so and not fear being arrested for saying so. It was pointed out that in this example it was not exactly what was said that could lead him into trouble, but the way in which he said so, but also when and in what company it was done. Just by arguing in this manner the others pointed out that they felt that the freedom of speech was not so free and that it would appear that freedom of speech contained an element of responsibility that had to be applied.
At this stage, the newcomer added that when he enters a supermarket he may apply his freedom of choice by selecting those products that he finds healthy and that are in accordance with his current diet. He then went on by arguing that it seemed to him that although there are freedoms, it should be recognised that responsibilities have to be applied. The pipe-smoker then entered the debate by saying that within the broader picture the citizens could be restricted in their choices. These restrictions would stem from a lack of extensive ranges of products on offer. These restrictions could be due to the fact that only a small range of products were being produced locally, while at the same time recognising that due to trade agreements that have been concluded, no additional products could be imported. This would thus explain the fact that certain outside circumstances could dictate that some freedoms suffer from restrictions that are not the result of producers withdrawing production. The laws of supply and demand would thus explain that there are examples of restricted choices and the idea of freedom does not exist.
The pipe-smoker then went on to point out that labour could also suffer from restrictions and one could find that persons wishing to offer their services were being restricted from doing so. This fact was
a possible explanation why certain people are unemployed and unable to find employment due to restrictions being introduced that have thus caused a breakdown of the concept of freedom of supplying services while demands for such services are apparent. One of the other members asked whether such consequences could impact on production costs to the extent that selling prices increase and thus lead to inflationary pressures, which are just the consequences that governments do not like.
It was then that the usually quiet and shy member asked whether these examples are the exact results of the `law of of unseen consequences` , which often gives rise to newer and more restrictions.
BY STAN DAVIS
