I. Introduction

A free society rests on a simple but uncompromising premise: rights are unalienable and immutable. They are not granted by governments, not contingent on desired outcomes, and not subject to suspension by decree. A just government exists for one purpose only: to secure those rights. Just governments possess no moral authority in doing anything beyond what the people may individually justly do in defense of their fundamental rights.

This principle immediately raises a difficult and unavoidable question:
Under what conditions, if any, may a government forcibly restrain an individual’s liberty?

If rights are truly unalienable, then detention—one of the most severe intrusions upon liberty—cannot be justified lightly, broadly, or indefinitely. It cannot be justified by fear, by prediction, or by statistical modeling. It can only be justified temporarily, defensively, and for the urgent protection of the most fundamental rights: life, liberty, and property.

Anything beyond this narrow justification represents not the defense of rights, but their quiet abandonment.

[If you are reading this via the subscription email, please click here to visit this post on my website to help out my website stats.]

II. Government as Delegated Authority, Not Sovereign Power

Government is not sovereign in itself. Sovereignty resides with the people as individuals endowed with natural rights. Government is an agent, not a master—its authority is delegated, limited, and conditional.

A fundamental corollary follows:

No government may rightfully exercise a power that the people themselves do not possess or cannot morally delegate.

An individual does not possess the authority to arbitrarily confine his neighbor “for safety.” He does not possess the right to imprison others based on hypothetical risk, collective fear, or administrative convenience. Therefore, the government cannot acquire such authority through delegation, legislation, or edict.

The only exception—recognized across moral philosophy, common law, and natural law traditions, is self-defense.

III. Detention as an Act of Force

Forcible detention is not a neutral administrative act. It is a form of coercion that directly infringes upon multiple fundamental rights simultaneously:

• Liberty – freedom of movement and association
• Property – control over one’s body, labor, and time
• Autonomy – the ability to act according to conscience and judgment

Because detention is inherently coercive, it is presumptively morally illegitimate. Therefore, the burden of justification lies entirely with the detaining authority.

If detention is to be morally justified at all, it must meet the same standard as any other use of defensive force.

---

IV. The Only Rights-Consistent Justification: Temporary Defense

If rights are unalienable and immutable, then forcible detention can only be justified under strict and narrow conditions. These conditions are not arbitrary; they arise necessarily from the logic of rights themselves.

1. Imminence

There must be a clear, immediate, and concrete threat to fundamental rights.

Imminence does not include:

• Statistical probability
• Generalized danger
• Hypothetical future harm
• Precautionary modeling

It requires a present or unfolding threat—something that demands immediate defensive action.

Without imminence, detention becomes preventive aggression rather than defense.

2. Defense of Fundamental Rights Only

Detention is only justified to prevent violations of:

• Life
• Liberty
• Property

It is not justified to:

• Optimize public outcomes
• Engineer compliance
• Reduce discomfort or anxiety
• Enforce policy preferences
• Achieve health, safety, or efficiency goals as ends in themselves

Once detention is used to enforce policy rather than prevent violence or invasion, it ceases to be rights-based and becomes managerial coercion and abuse.

3. Necessity and Least-Force Principle

Even in the presence of imminent danger, detention must be necessary—that is, the least coercive means available to mitigate the threat.

If the danger can be addressed through:

• Voluntary action
• Targeted intervention
• Warning or separation
• Individualized restraint short of confinement

then detention is unjustified.

Force is not validated by good intentions; it is validated only by necessity.

4. Strict Temporality

Detention must last only as long as the imminent threat exists.

The moment the threat dissipates:

• Continued detention becomes aggression
• Authority dissolves automatically
• Release is morally mandatory, not discretionary

Any system that allows detention to persist by default, unchallengeable renewal, or bureaucratic inertia violates the principle of unalienable rights.

There is no such thing as a justified, “temporary” emergency power that renews itself indefinitely.

5. Individualized Application

Just detention is specific, not collective.

It applies to:

• Specific persons actively posing a threat
• Identifiable and definable conduct
• Concrete circumstances that necessitate temporary restrictions

It does not apply to:

• Entire populations
• Demographic groups
• Geographic areas absent individualized threat
• People treated as risks rather than moral agents for themselves

Collective detention replaces justice with arbitrary administration and presumes guilt without evidence.

6. Burden of Proof and Accountability

The authority imposing detention bears the burden of:

• Demonstrating necessity
• Continuously justifying the restraint
• Accepting responsibility and  liability if the justification fails (which governments almost never do)

Without accountability, detention ceases to be defensive and becomes institutionalized power for the accomplishment of its own unjust purposes.

V. Rights Are Not “Balanced”—They Are Defended

A critical error of modern governance is the language of “balancing” rights against outcomes.

Rights are not variables in a cost-benefit equation. They are moral boundaries. Once rights may be suspended to achieve preferred results, they are no longer rights at all—only privileges contingent on government approval.

To say, “We must restrict liberty now to preserve liberty later,” is to admit that liberty has already been abandoned in principle.

True rights are defended, not temporarily or perpetually reduced, compromised, or optimized for convenience.

VI. The Line Between Defense and Tyranny

This principle draws a bright and uncomfortable line:

• Defense of rights is always just and morally legitimate.
• Management of populations is not just or morally legitimate.

When governments detain, restrict, or confine people (by issuing“shelter in place orders”) based on:

• Risk modeling
• Predictive harm
• Collective fear
• Administrative necessity

they are no longer acting as protectors of rights, but as engineers of behavior.

History shows that once this line is crossed, it is rarely uncrossed voluntarily.

VII. The Inescapable Conclusion

If rights are unalienable and immutable, then the following conclusion is unavoidable:

Forcible detention is not a standing power of government. It is a temporary, defensive act tolerated only to prevent imminent violations of the most fundamental rights.

Anything broader, longer, or more abstract than this is not law—it is coercion justified by fear and often motivated by greed and lust for power.

A society that forgets this does not lose its freedom all at once. It trades it away incrementally, in the name of safety, until safety itself becomes the excuse for domination.

VIII. Final Summary

• Rights cannot be suspended without being denied
• Detention is a form of force and requires strict justification
• Only imminent defense of life, liberty, and property qualifies
• Temporality, necessity, and individualization are non-negotiable
• Collective or preventive detention contradicts unalienable rights

In short:

The moment detention exceeds immediate defense, government ceases to be a guardian of rights and becomes their greatest threat.

---