A Rising Threat to Our Western Freedoms or which came first, the Act or the Regulation?

 


A Rising Threat to Our Western Freedoms 
 
The great Western tradition — especially in the common-law countries of England, Scotland, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand — has long rested on a clear and powerful principle of liberty:
 
 “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed.”
 
 This means: As an ordinary citizen, you are free to act unless a specific law explicitly prohibits it. The only real question should be:
 
“Does this activity violate anyone else’s rights?”
 
 If the answer is no, it is legal by default. This idea comes from English common law and embodies true individual liberty — the state can only restrict you where it has clearly drawn a line.  
 
A senior English judge, Sir John Laws, captured it perfectly:  
 
“For the individual citizen, everything which is not forbidden is allowed; but for public bodies and notably government, everything which is not allowed is forbidden.”
The Growing Threat: Two Connected FrontsUnfortunately, this foundational principle is now under pressure from two sides:  
 
1. The External Front – EU Influence (and its reach into the UN:
 
The European Union operates on a very different model: the continental civil-law approach where the default is often “Everything is illegal until a law or regulation is created to make it legal.”  Through its massive regulatory power and the “Brussels Effect,” the EU exports this permission-first mindset worldwide. EU rules on data (GDPR), chemicals, AI, and more frequently become global benchmarks.   
 
The EU also coordinates heavily at the United Nations (with enhanced observer status), shaping international discussions and soft standards that can pressure even common-law countries toward more bureaucratic, pre-approval systems. 
 
 2. The Internal Front – Homegrown Bureaucratic MindsetEven without direct EU rules, many agencies and officials inside our own common-law countries are quietly adopting the same attitude. After years of exposure to continental bureaucratic thinking (through international meetings, training, or joint projects), regulators increasingly act as if:
 
 “If we have not created a specific regulation to allow it, then it is illegal.”This “permission society” is spreading through mission creep, risk aversion, and the natural tendency of bureaucracies to grow by writing more rules.Quick Real-World Contrast
Aspect
Common-Law “Western” 
View (e.g. UK/US)
Civil-Law / Bureaucratic European View 
(e.g. France/Germany/EU)
Default rule
Allowed unless specifically banned
Forbidden unless specifically permitted
Legal style
Flexible, case-by-case, based on precedents
Codified, detailed statutes that try to cover everything
Everyday impact
You can start a business, invent something, 
or enjoy a hobby without asking permission first
Many activities 
(especially regulated ones like data, 
chemicals, or imports) 
require prior licenses or approvals
Stereotypical joke
“In England, everything not forbidden is allowed.”
“In Germany/France, 
everything not allowed is forbidden.”
This contrast highlights why EU rules like GDPR or chemical regulations (REACH) sometimes feel like they assume almost everything needs official blessing first.A Simple Illustration: Flying a Kite in the ParkImagine a sunny day and someone wanting to fly a colorful kite in an open public park.
  • Traditional Common-Law Way (Freedom First):
    No one’s rights are being violated. No harm is occurring. So it is legal by default. Go fly the kite and enjoy the wind. 
    If something rare happens — for example, the kite lands on a passing car’s windshield and causes an accident — the person flying the kite is responsible. Personal liability and the courts handle real problems after the fact. The government and taxpayers are not liable.
  • New Bureaucratic Way (Permission First):
    An official says, “We have no specific rule allowing kite flying here, therefore we cannot permit it.” They may demand studies, permits, guidelines, or simply ban it — even though the activity is completely harmless and violates no one’s rights.
This small example shows the bigger danger: harmless joys, innovation, and everyday freedoms are slowly being replaced by endless approvals and red tape.Why This MattersOur common-law heritage built dynamic, free societies by trusting individuals with liberty and holding them accountable only when they cause real harm. Replacing that with a “permission society” — whether pushed from Brussels and the UN or grown internally — erodes personal responsibility, slows progress, and quietly shifts power from citizens to unelected bureaucrats.The solution is straightforward. We must insist on returning to the original principle:
 
 Freedom comes first.
Ask every time a new restriction is proposed:
“Does this violate anyone else’s rights? If not, it should remain legal by default.”We need to push back — at the local, national, and international levels — against unnecessary rules that turn free citizens into people who must constantly ask for permission.Our Western freedoms were hard-won. Let’s not lose them by default. 
 
Sources for Further Reading
  1. Legal maxim and Sir John Laws quote
    Wikipedia: “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed” (well-documented entry with references to Sir John Laws).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed
  2. Common law vs. civil law systems and default rules
    World Bank: Key Features of Common and Civil Law Systems.
    https://ppp.worldbank.org/key-features-common-and-civil-law-systems
  3. Brussels Effect and EU global regulatory influence
    Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World (Oxford University Press, 2020).
    https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/232/
  4. EU rules like GDPR and REACH as global benchmarks
    Examples of the Brussels Effect in privacy and chemicals regulation (see also CEPA reports on GDPR’s global spread).
  5. EU coordination and influence at the United Nations
    European Parliament Research Service and official EU-UN relations documents (enhanced observer status since 2011).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_and_the_United_Nations
    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/652081/EPRS_IDA(2020)652081_EN.pdf
These sources are publicly available and provide solid legal, academic, and institutional backing for the ideas in the article. The core principles (the maxim, the judge’s quote, and the distinction between the two legal traditions) are widely recognized in legal scholarship.
 

Curtis Anthony Neil/Grok 4.0/ LibreOffice. March 28th. 2026 AD.

Bakersfield, California, USA, North America, Planet Earth (Terra), the third planet from the Sun (Sol), Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy

Comments

Post a Comment