The Regulatory State Has Criminalized the Simple Life It Once Made Possible

Vanlife, surf camps, and off-grid living run afoul of rules that assume a conventional existence

There has always been, in surf culture and beyond, an attraction to the simple life: the van parked by the beach, the off-grid cabin, the modest existence organized around the waves rather than around the accumulation of possessions and the demands of conventional life. This simple life, once readily available to those who chose it, has increasingly run afoul of a regulatory state that assumes and enforces a conventional existence, criminalizing ways of living that harm no one but fail to conform to the rules.

The War on Simple Living

The person who would live simply, in a van by the beach, in an off-grid cabin, in a modest arrangement outside the conventional housing market, increasingly finds this choice obstructed by regulation. Ordinances against sleeping in vehicles, restrictions on off-grid dwellings, requirements that housing meet extensive codes designed for conventional homes, and the general regulatory assumption of a conventional existence, together make the simple life difficult and often illegal, criminalizing choices that harm no one.

These restrictions are frequently justified by appeals to safety, sanitation, or order, but their effect is to foreclose ways of living that fall outside the conventional, to insist that everyone live in the approved manner, in conventional housing meeting conventional codes, regardless of their preferences or circumstances. The person who would choose a simpler, more modest, less conventional existence finds this choice obstructed by rules that assume and enforce conformity to a particular way of life.

The burden of these restrictions falls heavily on those of modest means, for whom the simple life is not merely a preference but often a necessity, the only affordable option in a high-cost environment. The surf community, with its tradition of modest living organized around the waves, has been particularly affected, as the van by the beach and the off-grid cabin, once readily available, become illegal under the expanding regulatory regime.

The Assumption of Conformity

At the root of these restrictions lies a regulatory assumption of conformity, an assumption that everyone will live in conventional housing, in the approved manner, conforming to the codes and standards designed for a particular way of life. This assumption, built into the regulatory regime, leaves no room for those who would live differently, who would choose a simpler or more modest or less conventional existence, and it criminalizes their choices not because they harm anyone but because they fail to conform.

This assumption reflects a broader tendency of the regulatory state to enforce uniformity, to insist that everyone live in the approved manner, to leave no room for the unconventional, the modest, the different. The regulations designed for conventional housing and conventional living become, in effect, mandates for conformity, foreclosing the alternatives and insisting that everyone conform to the approved way of life. The simple life is criminalized not because it is harmful but because it is different.

The cost of this enforced conformity is the loss of freedom, the foreclosure of the alternatives that a free society should permit. The person who would live simply, who would choose an unconventional existence that harms no one, should be free to do so, and the regulatory regime that forecloses this choice represents an unjustified restriction on freedom, an insistence on conformity that a free society should reject.

Harm and Its Absence

The proper test of whether an activity should be restricted is whether it harms others, and by this test, much of the simple living that the regulatory state criminalizes should be permitted. The person sleeping in their van by the beach, living off-grid in a modest cabin, choosing an unconventional existence, harms no one, and the restrictions on these choices cannot be justified by appeal to the prevention of harm. They serve instead to enforce conformity, to insist on the approved way of life, to foreclose the alternatives.

Where genuine harms are at stake, where simple living would create real problems of sanitation, safety, or imposition on others, regulation may be justified, but these genuine concerns can be addressed through narrowly tailored rules rather than through the wholesale criminalization of unconventional living. The blanket restrictions that foreclose the simple life go far beyond what the prevention of genuine harm requires, serving instead to enforce a conformity that has no justification in the prevention of harm.

The distinction between genuine harm and mere nonconformity is essential, for it marks the boundary of legitimate regulation. The regulatory state has increasingly crossed this boundary, restricting not harmful conduct but merely unconventional conduct, criminalizing the simple life not because it harms anyone but because it fails to conform. This overreach represents an unjustified restriction on freedom, an enforcement of conformity that a free society should reject.

Reclaiming the Simple Life

The reclamation of the freedom to live simply, to choose an unconventional existence that harms no one, requires rolling back the regulatory restrictions that have criminalized it, distinguishing genuine harms from mere nonconformity, and restoring the freedom to live differently that a free society should permit. The simple life, once readily available, should be available again, free of the regulatory restrictions that have criminalized choices that harm no one.

This publication has argued throughout our network, including in related commentary at The London Prat, that the regulatory state has increasingly criminalized unconventional ways of living that harm no one, enforcing a conformity that a free society should reject, and that the freedom to live simply and differently deserves to be reclaimed.

The regulatory state has criminalized the simple life; reclaiming it is a matter of freedom. For further reading on personal freedom and regulation, consult Reason, and additional network commentary at The London Prat.

SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/