How Many Laws Are Enough? J. L. Payne

Now that the excitement is over, perhaps it's time to examine the premise of that debate. Should we consider sexual harassment "an extremely serious matter," a matter so serious that we should regulate it by law? It's important to remember what, in the final analysis, legal regulation is. It means that we are prepared to use force against the person who is the object of the regulation. It's easy to overlook this point because government actions seem so innocent in their initial stages. Usually they start with a letter or document ordering the person to appear at a hearing or trial, or pay a fine. But lurking behind this document is the threat of force. If the person chooses to disregard it, then G-men or state troopers with guns will eventually come to his home. If he ignores them or locks his door, the officers are authorized to use force against him. They may smash his door down; they may seize him and drag him away. If he attempts James L. Payne, a politicalscientist,is the author of The Culture of Spending: Why Congress Lives Beyond OUf Means.

163 to defend himself, still more force will be used. In the process, the citizen may be injured or even killed. When is it right for the state to use force in this way? The traditional answer is that when the indi vidual has initiated force, as in a robbery, rape, or murder, then the use of force is justified, both to restrain him and to deter others from doing the same thing. When the state acts in this defensive way, it plays a force-reducing role, lowering the sum total of violence in the world. By this test, sexual harassment in the workplace should not be legallyregulated because it is not an initiation of force. The woman (or man) who suf fers it is not physically attacked. Sexual harass ment is not rape. It can be disagreeable, of course. It can even mean that the employee has to resign the job, just as she (or he) would have to resign a job whichpaid too little. An unfortunate situation, yes, but not a violent one.

What's wrong, people will ask, with bringing it under government regulation? At first glance, it seems a simple way to fix the problem. But con sider the long-run consequences. When policy makers start to treat nonviolent activities as crimes, government forsakes its role as peace maker. It becomes a violence-initiator, drawing its guns against peaceful citizens whose behavior it views as unsatisfactory. Now it is adding to the sum total of violence in the world. Furthermore, it sets a bad example. It is encouraging the angry, the unsocialized, and the deranged to imitate its practice of initiating the use of force as a problem-solving method. Sadly,modern legislators have not understood this connection. For generations, they have attempted to correct nonviolent situations by resorting to coercive regulation. From barber shops to schools, from hospitals to farms: The list of do's and don'ts officially backed by guns has grown to staggering proportions.

Can the lawenforcement systemstand this ever increasing load? In the past 20 years, the number of people that federal, state, and local govern ments have put in prison has more than tripled. Jails are so overcrowded that robbers and rapists are placed on parole. Surely it's time to concen trate on controlling violent misbehavior.Lawmak ers shouldn't further burden the criminal justice system by making it handle unfortunate but non violent problems. 0 164 A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK Edmund Burke by John Chamberlain E dmund Burke is a name that was once well-known to Americans. He never visit ed America, but he could be counted on to oppose King George III and his ministers in their efforts to tax the colonies without a by-your-Ieave. He opposed the Stamp Act, and he would have taken part in the Boston Tea Party if he had been anywhere in the American Northeast. His speech on conciliation was once read in hundreds of American schools. It was dropped when the teaching of history was abandoned in favor of that vague thing called social studies.