Governments have many roles, but some are of fundamental importance. A vital role is to secure citizens in their persons and possessions.

I am amazed by the extent of public opposition to this long-standing principle. It has been triggered by its inclusion in the government’s Regulatory Standards Bill.

Some prominent academics deny it is fundamental. At least one is vitriolic, asserting it is partisan and ideological.

Some assert it elevates the individual over the collective. Others that it puts profits before wages, or big business over everyone.

Thousands see the Bill as anti-Treaty and thereby anti-Māori.

It is none of these things. Magna Carta established that King John could not rule his subjects by improper decree. Especially not the barons at Runnymede. The US Declaration of Independence similarly objected to King George III’s tax on tea.

Long-standing English common law traditions guard against despotic government rule. These gains were hard won. One king lost his head in the process. Rule by Parliament, not divine right, won the day.

Take the liberty principle. You own your own body. You are not a slave; you can choose what job to pursue and where you will live. You own what you earn, be it a wage, self-employed income, profit or interest on savings.

In the words of Adam Smith in 1776, the property we have in our own labour “as it is the original foundation of all other property, so is it the most sacred and inviolable”.

The prime importance of security in the peaceful enjoyment of your possessions follows. Theft and trespass are illegal. Police searches need a warrant. And the state must enforce these laws well. Many victims of crime could tell us that.

None of these and other venerable protections are absolute. Parliament is the sovereign law-maker. Its tax and other laws trump all. It can override any guiding principles.

It could deny due process. It could ban anything on a whim. It could imprison political opponents. It could seize out of malice or envy any individual’s property without compensation.

Of course, it should not do such things. It should act in a principled manner. Its justifications should have integrity. But must they?

People need to be clear about which principles are fundamental. Otherwise, hard-won liberties are easily lost.

The government’s Legislation Guidelines spell out the fundamental importance of respect for the dignity of the individual.

To undermine its importance by spurious assertions is dangerous.