I read this as a cautionary tale. The common idea of "freedom by default", when taken to ridiculous extremes leads to quite extreme and, dare I say it, wrong conclusions.
Investing in the poor and in education has made Australia what it is/was. Having seen what a lack of support for poor and lack of education has done in Asia, Sth America and the USA it should be obvious that the quality of life here is *much* better. Believe me, being rich is not so much fun when you need to wall yourself from the poor and use armed guards because they would risk injury rather than starve another night.
Making life cheap makes *everyones* life cheap and the "us and them" situation gets wider.
I think the author has slightly overlaboured the "walking down the street kicking people in the goolies" example. It is clear to most that kicking someone is breaking their freedom to physical integrity, and is breaking the "except.." clause of the rule.
Here is a better one: Is it a crime for me to grow and smoke dope? Currently yes. Even though this is a "private" act, it offends some people to the extent that they would actually ban it.
So who is really in the wrong here? This is an example of Spencers "defective moral sense". The prohibitionists don't seem to care that drug use *increases* under prohibition, but they feel good exercising their "moral judgement" on others. Lets face it, who doesn't enjoy putting others in their place? We all have a little bully in us. Where prohibition is rife so are the profits, and so is the corruption it brings.
Having a law that is not logical, does the opposite of its intended action, corrupts the police, creates a huge risk to the naive generations (teenagers) and creates a huge untaxable black market: Now thats a defective moral sense!
Now awaiting howls of derision. :-)

An American and an Australian were out duck shooting, and simultaneously discharged their shotguns at a lonesome and very unlucky duck, which dropped at their feet and both claimed it.

The Aussie said: We can settle this in the time honoured Australian way, I will kick you in the testicles, you kick me, and the first to give up gets the duck. The American agrees.

Being a former AFL player the Aussie lands a great kick, and the American drops to the ground writhing in pain. After a few minutes he staggers to his feet. Grinning he says: Now its my turn. to which the Aussie replies: Nah mate, you can have the bloody duck.

This chappie Spencer is enormously tiresome as was Jeremy Bentham. Social Darwinism, the survival of the fittest has no place in any civilised society. The obsession with "codes" has no place either.

As William Penn wrote in 1670, the best way to secure the wellbeing of any society is the good old rule of law. That is the two pronged advice of Jesus Christ that is the basis of the common law. One: You shall have no God but the Father, and two: do nothing to anyone else that you would not like done to you. That is the rule of law, and the way to decide if you had broken the law was to submit to a jury trial. Juries in English Law determined both guilt and punishment, a fact overlooked by both Spencer and Bentham.

By making a Judge or Magistrate a God, we offend the first bit of advice, and we offend the second by making ever increasing laws codifying morality. Of course this makes a certain element in society feel useful, but their job could just as well be done by twelve local electors, gathered together in a Christian Court, divining guilt or innocence and determining the punishment. The basis of the original criminal Code, was thousands of common law decisions on punishment. The real D---heads of History, are those who would codify everything by a Parliament.

Isn't that ever so slightly contradictory, Peter the Believer?

>>This chappie Spencer is enormously tiresome...<<

The article's author actually uses, somewhat tediously in my view, mutual testicle-kicking as an overextended metaphor for Spencer's "law of equal freedom".

"Suppose I get up one day and take it into my head that it would be a good day to wander the streets, kicking random strangers in the testicles. Would this violate Spencer's law of equal freedom? Not as long as I am prepared to accept the possibility that others might exercise their equal freedom by kicking me in the testicles."

From your comment above, one would suppose that you disagree with this concept.

However, you go on to state:

>>...the two pronged advice of Jesus Christ that is the basis of the common law. One: You shall have no God but the Father, and two: do nothing to anyone else that you would not like done to you<<

I don't know about you, but to me the second part sounds indistinguishable from the author's illustration of Spencer's "law".

Or am I missing something?

As Gummo Trotsky in his polemic on the work of Spencer has actually completely missed the point of the first principle and misinterpreted the rest, the entire post is logically barren.

As the paper in question was written in 1851 when there was no bill of rights and the legal system to a large extent was focused on the functioning of the elite, this thesis of his was revolutionary and probably the precursor to the bill of rights as well as laying the foundations for much of the law today.

Even in this article HS recognised that kicking someone in the b** would probably infringe on their freedoms and tried somewhat inelegantly to expand on this. Gummo completely missed that.

The second point HS was making was that the purpose of government was to facilitate the normal functioning of society and not to try and modify it. This is a point that many stages of goverment forget, and are surprised when their efforts at social engineering fail.

Viewed through 150+ years of hindsight, there are some omissions, but overall as a scholarly paper, the fact that it is still quoted and read, indicates its value.

Gummo Trotsky deserves a Don Quixote award for tilting at windmills.

Shadow Minister, you've made a significant error of reasoning - using a condescending style to cover up your own ignorance and ineptitude.

As a matter of historical fact, in 1851 England did have a Bill of Rights - it was passed by the English Parliament in 1689 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_Rights for a start, then any good introductory text on UK constitutional law).

Your comments on Spencer's thesis - including your declaration of Spencer's position on bollock kicking - suggest a superficial reading of Social Statics at best. Social Statics is, by the way, a rather otiose book, not a mere article. In it, Spencer, like Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Spinoza and several others before and after him, attempts to derive a social theory from questionable first principles. And failed, as they did. All he discovered was his own delusions and fancies.

The only reason Spencer's ideas are still debated - that is they still require occasional refutation - is that they have a strong emotional appeal for those who prefer smug certitude to knowledge.