What constitutes an essential liberty?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ptabor
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of essential liberties and the extent to which they should be preserved in the context of security. Participants explore historical perspectives on rights, the evolution of these rights over time, and the implications of personal freedoms in relation to the rights of others.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question which liberties should not be sacrificed for security, citing historical changes in rights such as slave ownership and voting rights.
  • Others propose that the definition of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is central to understanding essential liberties.
  • There is a suggestion that the liberty to do whatever one wants, as long as it does not harm others, could be a comprehensive approach to defining essential liberties.
  • Some argue that all rights have limits, which may not solely be related to security, and reference a straightforward test for determining those limits.
  • A participant asserts that hurting others can be a protected liberty, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, leading to further clarification on the meaning of "hurting people."
  • There is a discussion about the implications of limiting rights based on age, such as voting restrictions for those under 18.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the nature of essential liberties and the conditions under which they may be limited. There is no consensus on a singular definition or approach to essential liberties.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments reference historical contexts and philosophical beliefs, such as those of John Locke, but these are not universally accepted or agreed upon by all participants.

ptabor
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
What are those liberties that should not be sacrificed for security?

Looking at it historically, these rights have changed over time.

For example, slave ownership was once considered a right. Indeed, many of the landowning white males that drafted our Constitution were slave owners.

The right to vote - of course the right to vote was limited for quite some time - being the exclusive club of the white male. It is also limited today, felons for example.

The right to put in your body what you want - limited by prohibition (repealed ) and the controlled substances act (atrocity) - although tobacco is still legal (hypocricy).

Thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What constitutes ""life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a far better question, that is what has been agreed that we all are entitled to.
 
ptabor said:
What are those liberties that should not be sacrificed for security?

Looking at it historically, these rights have changed over time.

For example, slave ownership was once considered a right. Indeed, many of the landowning white males that drafted our Constitution were slave owners.

The right to vote - of course the right to vote was limited for quite some time - being the exclusive club of the white male. It is also limited today, felons for example.

The right to put in your body what you want - limited by prohibition (repealed ) and the controlled substances act (atrocity) - although tobacco is still legal (hypocricy).

Thoughts?

The questions you are asking with regards to essential liberties are rooted in the beliefs of John Locke (and his counter-arguments to Hobbe's perspective)

As for slave ownership, rest assured that it was not included in the original drafts. The opposition were very much excluded from the Virginia Convention by a few powerful persons.

The restriction of substances is related strictly to control and believe it or not surveillance (numerous histories on the subject are available).
 
ptabor said:
What are those liberties that should not be sacrificed for security?
No liberty should be sacrificed, as long as it does not infringe upon the liberty of others.

slave ownership was once considered a right. Indeed, many of the landowning white males that drafted our Constitution were slave owners.
That's because they didn't think slaves were part of mankind. They didn't think women or children were part of it either.

The right to vote - of course the right to vote was limited for quite some time - being the exclusive club of the white male. It is also limited today, felons for example.
And people under the age of 18. That's a lot of people we group together with felons, isn't it? We send all young people to prison, too, just like felons.
 
Why not just the liberty to do whatever you want aslong as it hurts no one besides yourself. That seems to be the simplest way to include everything essential without leaving out anything important?
 
ptabor said:
What are those liberties that should not be sacrificed for security?
All rights have limits, though not necessarily because of the need for security. Azael provided the most straightforward test to determine those limits.
 
Azael said:
Why not just the liberty to do whatever you want aslong as it hurts no one besides yourself. That seems to be the simplest way to include everything essential without leaving out anything important?
I am pretty sure that is what we are supposed to be working towards.
 
No, in the general sense, hurting people is a liberty that should be protected.

People should be free to leave long term relationships, even though it will hurt the partner. Businesses should be free to steal marketshare from their competitors, even though it will eventually hurt their competitor's employees financially. Children should be able to choose careers they want, even though it will hurt their parents.

Hurting people should be allowed as long as it does not infringe upon the liberty of others. Hurt is something all people have to live with responsibly in order to safeguard liberty.
 
Last edited:
That's what Azael meant by: "hurting people", Mickey (infringing on their rights). Yeah, the wording could have been better.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
That's what Azael meant by: "hurting people", Mickey (infringing on their rights). Yeah, the wording could have been better.

thanks for clearing that up because that is exactly what I meant :approve:

When it comes to personal rights I am 100% libertarian...
 
  • #11
Oh, okay. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
13K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
506K