"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (USA Founding Father
( Read more... )
I think it unlikely that it means all liberty is essential. If it does, then that implies that it's OK for me to break down your door and steal your stuff. Though you would have the liberty to shoot me in response. Libertarianism is not a recipe for a society I'd particularly want to live in.
So there must be some liberties that are essential. (And, as a corollary, some liberties that are not - presumably divided into those that are desirable and those that are undesirable).
I'm not sure that it's clear which liberties fall into what categories. And I don't think there's a clear consensus in our society on this question. I'd suggest that's where many of the problems lie. Particularly where liberties collide.
For example : Sinners and Winners man. Does his right of free speech and religion override my right to go about my business without being yelled at, insulted and generally abused by a twit with a megaphone?
I'm sorry but any politician worth his salt should be able to put enough spin on publicity and enough handy get out clauses in the legislation so that the harm to civil liberties is disguised sufficiently. I think civil liberties are way to important to just be brushed under the carpet. Perhaps if the government are going to try and be upfront about this then they should make a list of all the civil liberty infringements they are making and put it to referendum.
Of course we've been heading down this route for years (since Michael Howard was Home Secretary) with all criminal law - Howard was sneaky enough to hide his civil liberty infringements in byelaws and small reversals of the burden of proof etc. Only people that know evidence law really ever see them and they seem too minor to make a big deal about. Now New Labour decide to go in with bulldozers and make lots of new and silly laws and unsuprisingly seem shocked when even more unsuprisingly lots of people say "oi, wait a minute".
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
So there must be some liberties that are essential. (And, as a corollary, some liberties that are not - presumably divided into those that are desirable and those that are undesirable).
I'm not sure that it's clear which liberties fall into what categories. And I don't think there's a clear consensus in our society on this question. I'd suggest that's where many of the problems lie. Particularly where liberties collide.
For example : Sinners and Winners man. Does his right of free speech and religion override my right to go about my business without being yelled at, insulted and generally abused by a twit with a megaphone?
Reply
Reply
Of course we've been heading down this route for years (since Michael Howard was Home Secretary) with all criminal law - Howard was sneaky enough to hide his civil liberty infringements in byelaws and small reversals of the burden of proof etc. Only people that know evidence law really ever see them and they seem too minor to make a big deal about. Now New Labour decide to go in with bulldozers and make lots of new and silly laws and unsuprisingly seem shocked when even more unsuprisingly lots of people say "oi, wait a minute".
*shakes head* all a big mess.
Reply
Leave a comment