Guest Commentary: Less is more, constitutionally speaking
Florida has a chance to do something rare in politics. It can put liberty back at the center of its legal order, not as an afterthought or a campaign slogan, but as a principle built into the very Florida State Constitution itself. The idea is simple enough. Whenever a law, rule, or regulation is written or interpreted, the starting point should be this: Use the least possible coercion and take the least possible money.
In other words, liberty comes first. Government force comes last.
This amendment would not erase a single statute. It would not tear out pages of the law books. What it would do is set the compass by which those laws are read and applied. Courts would be reminded that their duty is not to enlarge the power of the state but to contain it. Agencies would be reminded that fines, mandates, and threats are not default tools. Legislators would be reminded that the people sent them to Tallahassee to safeguard freedom, not nibble away at it in the name of expedience.
Libertarians have been saying this for decades. The national party platform is blunt: Every person has the right to the fruits of his or her labor, and the forcible collection of money or goods is wrong. The Libertarian Party of Florida has carried that same torch, arguing for voluntary means of raising revenue and resisting the steady creep of new taxes. Both platforms insist that government must not be the first resort for solving problems. Free people, voluntary association, private enterprise, and personal responsibility come first.
Even so, Florida too often falls into the same bad habits as other states. Laws default to coercion. Agencies default to compulsion. The hammer swings before anyone thinks to offer an open hand. Fines are piled on. Permits and licenses choke enterprise. Taxation is treated as inevitable. This proposed amendment would flip the presumption. Instead of assuming that force is normal and liberty an exception, it assumes liberty is normal and force is what must be justified.
My text is plain and without flourish:
“In interpreting any law, regulation, or administrative rule enacted or enforced by the State of Florida or its political subdivisions, it shall be presumed that such enactment seeks to achieve its stated ends through the minimum necessary use of governmental coercion and taxation. Courts shall resolve ambiguities in favor of interpretations that reduce the scope, intensity, and fiscal burden of governmental action, consistent with the protection of individual rights and public safety.”
Note carefully what this language does not do. It does not prohibit taxation. It does not strip the state of the power to act. It does not repeal whole categories of law. What it does is set a presumption, rebuttable but powerful, that government must be modest. Judges will have to explain why more force is justified. Agencies will have to show why a program needs compulsion instead of persuasion. Legislators will be pushed to write laws that look to incentives, education, and voluntary cooperation before they reach for mandates.
This kind of interpretive principle is not foreign to the law. Courts already apply canons of construction. They avoid interpretations that create constitutional conflict. They read criminal statutes narrowly to protect the accused. They presume rights unless the legislature clearly takes them away. Florida’s constitution itself contains guiding instructions in areas such as environmental protection and privacy. To place minimal coercion alongside those values would not be reckless. It would be consistent with the tradition of protecting the individual first and the state second.
The Libertarian Party of Florida has long fought to shrink the footprint of government. It has opposed civil asset forfeiture, fought red-light cameras, and called for the abolition of occupational licensing. It has warned against taking federal money that comes with strings attached. The amendment is in the same spirit, but instead of fighting battles one by one, it arms every citizen, every court, and every legislator with a principle. The default setting becomes liberty.
Critics will say this ties government’s hands. They will warn of endless litigation. They will complain that public programs will be harder to run. To which the proper reply is: Good. Good if government must pause before it compels. Good if courts demand clarity before they allow more taxes. Good if agencies must prove that fines and threats are necessary. The burden ought to be on the state, not the citizen.
Florida stands at a familiar crossroads. One road leads to more of the same: more rules, more taxes, more mandates. The other road points to restraint. A state that does not simply tolerate liberty but presumes it. A state that treats coercion as a last resort. The amendment does not guarantee freedom, but it gives Floridians the legal footing to demand it. That alone makes it worth the fight.
Larry Gillis, is a director-at-large, Libertarian Party of Florida.