To what extent should the principle of liberty be upheld
23 Jun 2014, 12:56 pm
Is liberty something which should never be infringed upon or are there cases where our rights have to be taken away?
_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3
23 Jun 2014, 4:39 pm
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]
23 Jun 2014, 5:14 pm
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."
_________________
That's the way things come clear. All of a sudden. And then you realize how obvious they've been all along. ~Madeleine L'Engle
23 Jun 2014, 5:39 pm
Shadi2 wrote:
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."
Chafee, Zechariah wrote:
"Or to put the matter another way, it is useless to define free speech by talk about rights. The agitator asserts his constitutional right to speak, the government asserts its constitutional right to wage war. Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins". To find the boundary line of any right, we must get behind rules of law to human facts."
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.
23 Jun 2014, 5:58 pm
GGPViper wrote:
Shadi2 wrote:
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."
Chafee, Zechariah wrote:
"Or to put the matter another way, it is useless to define free speech by talk about rights. The agitator asserts his constitutional right to speak, the government asserts its constitutional right to wage war. Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins". To find the boundary line of any right, we must get behind rules of law to human facts."
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/
_________________
That's the way things come clear. All of a sudden. And then you realize how obvious they've been all along. ~Madeleine L'Engle
23 Jun 2014, 6:19 pm
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.
_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3
23 Jun 2014, 7:14 pm
Ectryon wrote:
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.
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).
_________________
That's the way things come clear. All of a sudden. And then you realize how obvious they've been all along. ~Madeleine L'Engle
24 Jun 2014, 1:27 am
Shadi2 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Shadi2 wrote:
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."
Chafee, Zechariah wrote:
"Or to put the matter another way, it is useless to define free speech by talk about rights. The agitator asserts his constitutional right to speak, the government asserts its constitutional right to wage war. Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins". To find the boundary line of any right, we must get behind rules of law to human facts."
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/
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.
24 Jun 2014, 3:11 am
GGPViper wrote:
Shadi2 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Shadi2 wrote:
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."
Chafee, Zechariah wrote:
"Or to put the matter another way, it is useless to define free speech by talk about rights. The agitator asserts his constitutional right to speak, the government asserts its constitutional right to wage war. Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins". To find the boundary line of any right, we must get behind rules of law to human facts."
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/
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".
_________________
That's the way things come clear. All of a sudden. And then you realize how obvious they've been all along. ~Madeleine L'Engle
24 Jun 2014, 3:42 am
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.
27 Jun 2014, 1:51 am
Ectryon wrote:
Is liberty something which should never be infringed upon or are there cases where our rights have to be taken away?
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.
27 Jun 2014, 7:46 pm
yelekam wrote:
Ectryon wrote:
Is liberty something which should never be infringed upon or are there cases where our rights have to be taken away?
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
_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3
02 Jul 2014, 9:12 am
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.
_________________
--James
02 Jul 2014, 12:14 pm
Quote:
What a fatuous question.
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
_________________
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ! !
My history on this forum preserves my old and unregenerate self. In the years since I posted here I have undergone many changes. I accept responsibility for my posts but I no longer stand behind them.
__________________
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high Hebrews 1:3
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,790
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
