To what extent should the principle of liberty be upheld

Post Reply New Topic

Is liberty something which should never be infringed upon or are there cases where our rights have to be taken away?

Some perspectives...

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the United States Supreme Court, 1919

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

- Zachariah Chafee, 1919 (often misattributed to Wendell Holmes, Jr.)

"You can have anything you want, but you better not take it from me."

- Guns N' Roses, 1987

And finally...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7X2_V60YK8[/youtube]

Of course there is always certain rules if you live in a society. And of course some of your rights will be taken away if, for example, you steal, harass, threaten, attack, or murder someone, etc., you will go to prison, but you still have some rights.

P.S. As far as I know Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr is the one who said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Source:
Chafee, Zechariah. "Freedom of speech in war time." Harvard Law Review (1919): 932-973
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1327107?seq=26 (page 957, line 6-14)

The actual quote is not found in the Schenck v. United States ruling where Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr. made his famous "fire in a theater" statement.

Zechariah Chafee is not the one who said it first, he was quoting someone else who said this long before him. Most the time it is attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. but I am not 100% sure who actually said it first.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15 ... fist-nose/

It seems almost semantic to me but we can definitely pursue this. What happens when rights conflict? Ectopic pregnancies might serve. In this example the birth of the foetus results in the death of the mother. Assuming that the foetus has a right to live we have to violate the rights of one or the other. Whose rights are most important?

Also the American gov would argue that the west's right to safety must be bought at the price of privacy.

In my opinion the answer to this one (ectopic pregnancy) is simple: the rights of the mother prevail (and the rights of the mother indeed prevail in the U.S., and many other countries). I don't like the idea of abortion in general tho, because I think many babies could be saved if they were given for adoption, but if the mother's life is in danger, considering she is the one who "created" the foetus to begin with, her life should be saved (unless SHE decides otherwise). If our laws were that the foetus comes first in a life or death situation versus the mother, I would be totally for abortion. Would you risk putting yourself in this situation to begin with? (where the doctors might have to chose between you and your baby, and would let you die if the situation arised), I wouldn't. Men would have to find a way to make babies themselves.

About your 2nd comment, its another touchy subject. As long as its not used against citizens in general it doesn't bother me, we have been informed after 9/11 that they would do this, and I still prefer if they check my phones and emails, than to end up victim of an act of terrorism like so many people on 9/11. Don't be naive about other countries tho, they all spy on their own citizens (and on other countries) and they do use it against them. In China for example, if they catch you protesting against the government on the internet, they will go to your house and take your computer and internet away (sometimes they even did this to whole villages).

I never claimed that Chafee said it first, but he did say it. I have found no record of Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr. ever making this statement.

He is mentioned quite often (just try a search with the words "who said right to swing my fist" you will see that his name comes up). But I said that "as far as I knew" it was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who said it first, and when I replied to your message I honestly thought it was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (which is why I thought I should let you know), but I have done some research after posting my reply and I doubt it now (I don't think it was either of them, and many others also said this). But anyway, in the article I posted their conclusion is that "John B. Finch communicated the earliest known instance in 1882".

No one is completely free to do as they please except the very wealthy. And as long as we have the level of income inequality we have in this world, the more the very wealthy of this world will make sure that the rest of us have limited liberties. Drag the ultra wealthy back into the real world from their lofty exile the less restrictive the liberties on the rest of us. Power over 7 billion people should not rest in the hands of 500 people.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2HfOfKhtD0[/youtube]

liberty and rights are two different things. liberty is a form of individual autonomy, and a right is a mandate to condition. These things act on separate dimensions, which at times coincide and at times conflict. When there are instances of conflict between true rights and individual autonomy, it is reasonable to place rules of limitation on behavior to protect the rights of people.

I didnt think that my post conflated the two. Thanks for clarifying though

Of course there are circumstances in which personal liberty must be infringed. What a fatuous question.

Your freedom to walk where you like is infringed by the property rights of private landowners.
Your freedom to movement is infringed by a peace officer's power of arrest.
Your freedom to do as you like may be infringed by the obligation to provide for the necessities of life for your child.
Your freedom to live in any place you light may be infringed by your nationality.
Your freedom to pursue a profession may be infringed by the qualifications required of practitioners of that profession.
Your freedom to contract is limited by the willingness of others to contract with you.

The only personal freedom that is anywhere recognized in law and which is not susceptible to curtailment is the freedom of thought, belief and opinion.

Haha perhaps, but your response is too reductive. Im not referring to mundane rights im referring to cases such as animal testing where there is a conflict between the rights of supposedly superior humans and supposedly inferior animals. What about our right to preemptively invade countries we believe harbour terrorists? Seems moot but many learned people endorse vietnam and or Iraq

Your liberty ends if and when you infringe on the rights of someone else. This has been the case in civil rights legislation concerning racial minorities, and today with gay rights.