Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

jb2000 · 09-23-2004, 12:18 AM

It is impossible to determine a breaking point really. We can't have absolute freedom and we certainly don't want absolute lack of freedom. So how much freedom, and more importantly what freedoms in particular, do we shoot for? As a civil libertarian, I work on the premise of everyone having the right to do whatever they want short of hurting others (including infringing on others' rights).

As for the government's role, rights exist with or without government. It is a matter of whether or not the government recognizes and respects rights, and whether or not they defend them.

Once the government recognizes a right selectively, they have essentially declared it as merely a privledge, not a right. We do not have the right to travel by air, but most of us, by virtue of being white Americans, are granted the privledge to do so.

To cease to recognize a freedom is only acceptable when the following three conditions are met:

1) It is absolutely necessary to restrict freedom to accomplish the goal.
2) The value of accomplishing the goal outweighs the temporary restriction.
3) The restriction is limited strictly to the minimum time necessary to complete the goal.

Freedom is key to quality of life, perhaps the most important factor beyond simple livelyhood. Security is also an important factor in quality of life. Reductions of freedom or security are harmful to quality of life.

So then when it comes time to discuss limiting freedoms to improve security, I must inquire certain questions:

1) Is limiting freedoms going to have an effective impact on improving security, and is it the only way to have that impact?
2) How much of an improvement to our quality of life is gained by limiting freedom that can not be gained any other way?
3) How much of a reduction to our quality of life is suffered from the limiting of freedom?
4) Is the improvement greater than the reduction to our quality of life?
5) Are the limitations absolutely minimized in time and breadth to only that which is absolutely necessary to achieve the improved security?

Unless 1, 4, & 5 are all unqualified Yes's, I can not condone the action. In short, if you want to sell me on accepting some limits, you had better convince me that the limits are a) necessary, b) effective, and c) temporary.

09-23-2004, 12:18 AM	#10 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	It is impossible to determine a breaking point really. We can't have absolute freedom and we certainly don't want absolute lack of freedom. So how much freedom, and more importantly what freedoms in particular, do we shoot for? As a civil libertarian, I work on the premise of everyone having the right to do whatever they want short of hurting others (including infringing on others' rights). As for the government's role, rights exist with or without government. It is a matter of whether or not the government recognizes and respects rights, and whether or not they defend them. Once the government recognizes a right selectively, they have essentially declared it as merely a privledge, not a right. We do not have the right to travel by air, but most of us, by virtue of being white Americans, are granted the privledge to do so. To cease to recognize a freedom is only acceptable when the following three conditions are met: 1) It is absolutely necessary to restrict freedom to accomplish the goal. 2) The value of accomplishing the goal outweighs the temporary restriction. 3) The restriction is limited strictly to the minimum time necessary to complete the goal. Freedom is key to quality of life, perhaps the most important factor beyond simple livelyhood. Security is also an important factor in quality of life. Reductions of freedom or security are harmful to quality of life. So then when it comes time to discuss limiting freedoms to improve security, I must inquire certain questions: 1) Is limiting freedoms going to have an effective impact on improving security, and is it the only way to have that impact? 2) How much of an improvement to our quality of life is gained by limiting freedom that can not be gained any other way? 3) How much of a reduction to our quality of life is suffered from the limiting of freedom? 4) Is the improvement greater than the reduction to our quality of life? 5) Are the limitations absolutely minimized in time and breadth to only that which is absolutely necessary to achieve the improved security? Unless 1, 4, & 5 are all unqualified Yes's, I can not condone the action. In short, if you want to sell me on accepting some limits, you had better convince me that the limits are a) necessary, b) effective, and c) temporary.