Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Blake:
liberty is the ability to pursue the things in life that make us happy. Obviously breaking the law (murder,theft,robbery for example) are not to be tolerated and im all for maximum punishment in all cases of criminal activity. But if you want to go out and try new things, travel, and do what consenting adults do behind closed doors thats your liberty. I was in the Marine Corps and in boot camp i had to ask permission to do everything,but it was my choice to persevere(?) during that time. Not having to ask permission to travel or talk or go to the bathroom are liberties. If ppl dont think they have enough liberty in the USA....then move to Iraq where Saddam just elected himself dictator for 7 more years. Yes. liberty is good.
|
So who makes the laws? If you are only allowed to lose liberty through a law who decides on what the laws say? Under what principles should they be made? If we passed a law tomorrow to say that walking without humming was illegal would it be ok to enforce people?
What I'm trying to say is that liberty may be good, but when does it stop being good. We seem to have reached a bit of a concensus, you and me, that liberty tends to be good but it isn't good in all cases - i.e. ones that harm people and are therefore against the law. If that is the case then how do we decide which ones are harmful and which aren't.
And finally, liberty is a good thing - why. What is it that make sliberty so great. Say you could have a society where everybody is happy but has no liberty. Would it be ok to take away their happiness and give them liberty? Or is liberty only good in so far as it gives us something else (e.g. happiness itself)? Any thoughts? To anyone really. Not trying to pick on Steve Blake here.
Edited to clarify things a bit.
[ 11-08-2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]