The Line? Should it be crossed?
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 01:42
Heres the way I see it: There is a line in our society. This line is the line between Civil liberties and social wants. What do I mean by this? Well heres a list of issues:
Flag burning
Gay Marriage
Stronger security
etc etc etc....
So heres My question:
Is it right for the government to take away a civil liberty because it is soically acceptable?
(such as racism in the early 20th century)
Unblogged
10-07-2005, 01:44
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
-Benjamin Franklin
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 01:45
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
-Benjamin Franklin
Man I love that quote...
Man I love that quote...
Yeah, I hear that man. I hear that.
King Graham IV
10-07-2005, 01:47
If the majority of the population want to change a law or affect a freedom then that is acceptable, otherwise you will be impeding free speech and the democratic system.
If a majority wants to change something they have to be able to, despite the moral or ethical consequences, that was the majorities decision and it has to be respected.
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 01:49
If the majority of the population want to change a law or affect a freedom then that is acceptable, otherwise you will be impeding free speech and the democratic system.
If a majority wants to change something they have to be able to, despite the moral or ethical consequences, that was the majorities decision and it has to be respected.
*cough*Jim Crow*Cough*
*cough*Japanese interment camp*cough*
*cough*Holocaust*cough*
But your right if the majority wants it, it must be right...
What is a "civil liberty?" Smoking could be considered a civil liberty, yet if it's being done at the same bus stop where I'm waiting, it is really annoying, and if I wait at the same bus stop a lot, it could even kill me.
No. The only rights that should be restricted are those that impair the rights of others.
Remember, 500 years ago it was socially acceptable to own slaves, keep women as almost chattel to their husbands, burn witches and Protestants for heresy, banish Catholics to the woods to be killed by angered Native Americans, attack and harass Jews and kick them from their homes for no reason, seize property from peasants...
So, the conclusion is: Laws are not meant to be socially acceptable. They are meant to preserve individual liberty and security, but neither one over the other.
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 01:50
What is a "civil liberty?" Smoking could be considered a civil liberty, yet if it's being done at the same bus stop where I'm waiting, it is really annoying, and if I wait at the same bus stop a lot, it could even kill me.
Well you see heres my definition: you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't invringe upon others rights.
Therefore That guy smoking around you is invinging upon your right to not breath smoke, well thats how they justify the laws anyway...
Unblogged
10-07-2005, 01:50
What is a "civil liberty?" Smoking could be considered a civil liberty, yet if it's being done at the same bus stop where I'm waiting, it is really annoying, and if I wait at the same bus stop a lot, it could even kill me.
In Fayetteville, Arkansas, restaurants are not allowed to allow their patrons to smoke inside, and you can not smoke within 25 ft of a door...
If the majority of the population want to change a law or affect a freedom then that is acceptable, otherwise you will be impeding free speech and the democratic system.
If a majority wants to change something they have to be able to, despite the moral or ethical consequences, that was the majorities decision and it has to be respected.
This is true when looking at matters of national policy, for example whether or not there should be socialized healthcare. However there is no moral basis for restricting personal freedoms. Edit: Which covers things like smoking. You're infringing on other people's rights if you smoke around them, but if you're on your own then smoking is no problem.
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 01:51
No. The only rights that should be restricted are those that impair the rights of others.
Remember, 500 years ago it was socially acceptable..........burn witches
Ahh the good old days...
Well you see heres my definition: you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't invringe upon others rights.
Therefore That guy smoking around you is invinging upon your right to not breath smoke, well thats how they justify the laws anyway...
What about where there's government-funded health care? That guy smoking, although he is damaging only his own lungs, it's coming out of the government's pocket. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Should the government stop him from smoking?
Or what about seat belt usage? Should that be disallowed?
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 01:54
What about where there's government-funded health care? That guy smoking, although he is damaging only his own lungs, it's coming out of the government's pocket. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Should the government stop him from smoking?
Or what about seat belt usage? Should that be disallowed?
Ahh the great paradox, Personally I think its wrong to tell someone to protect themselves, I.E. outlawing smoking or having safty belt laws. If your dumb enough to do it to yourself go ahead. But it is justified when you infrine others rights... like theoretically I should have the right to kill people but becuase I would be infringing upon their right to live It is against the law.....
Unblogged
10-07-2005, 01:56
Or what about seat belt usage? Should that be disallowed?
How would disallowing the use of seat belts protect anyone?
My opinion is that seat belt usage should be optional.
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 01:57
How would disallowing the use of seat belts protect anyone?
My opinion is that seat belt usage should be optional.
yeah good point, why would you make seat belts illigal? that just seems mean to me...
Ahh the good old days...
To top it off, you would probably die of disease, starvation or war (if you were a peasant like most of the population) in your 50's or 60's...if you survived childhood.
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 02:00
To top it off, you would probably die of disease, starvation or war (if you were a peasant like most of the population) in your 50's or 60's...if you survived childhood.
They'd probably burn me lol, I am an athiest......
They'd probably burn me lol, I am an athiest......
I hope you don't know how to read, do math, or believe Copernicus' ideas...
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 02:05
I hope you don't know how to read, do math, or believe Copernicus' ideas...
Yeah I am really screwed then.....
And if it really was the "good old days," I'd rule you all, 'cause my ancestors were barons.
Neo Kervoskia
10-07-2005, 02:09
Well, Sie sehen, it seems that certain actions that are seen as justIfiEd so LoNg as THe majority wANts it. It's caLLed tyranny by majority.
Unblogged
10-07-2005, 02:10
Well, Sie sehen, it seems that certain actions that are seen as justIfiEd so LoNg as THe majority wANts it. It's caLLed tyranny by majority.
Do you have a parrot pecking at your shift key?
Yeah I am really screwed then.....
Well, it was nice knowing you... :(
Constantinopolis
10-07-2005, 02:15
If you don't believe the majority has the authority to change certain laws, then I'll have to ask you: Who does have the authority to change these laws? It's either a majority, a minority, or no one. If a minority can change laws that a majority can't, what you have is a form of clear-cut tyranny. And if no one can change those laws, then what about the people who passed the laws in the first place? Are they to be elevated to the status of gods whose words should not be questioned?
If the majority of the population want to change a law or affect a freedom then that is acceptable, otherwise you will be impeding free speech and the democratic system.
If a majority wants to change something they have to be able to, despite the moral or ethical consequences, that was the majorities decision and it has to be respected.
Glad the framers of the American Constitution didn't agree with you and made sure the Constitution didn't as well. Cause the system you're talking about sucks.
TheEvilMass
10-07-2005, 02:20
Well, it was nice knowing you... :(
"Damn My high IQ and Logic!!! I didn't mean to be smart honest! I will stop right now!"
Priest: "Fine just read from the bibl"
"Ok"*picks it up*"Then god came down from the heav---"*hit over the with brick
Priest: "hes a witch, he can read burn him!"
Villager:"but reverand can't you read"
Preist: "hes a witch too!!"
The Similized world
10-07-2005, 02:54
If you don't believe the majority has the authority to change certain laws, then I'll have to ask you: Who does have the authority to change these laws? It's either a majority, a minority, or no one. If a minority can change laws that a majority can't, what you have is a form of clear-cut tyranny. And if no one can change those laws, then what about the people who passed the laws in the first place? Are they to be elevated to the status of gods whose words should not be questioned?
Democracies are usually founded (there's never been an execption to this rule AFAIK) on a set of near-unchangable rules. These rules outline what the majority (or the representatives, as it's always been on this planet) can and cannot decide. They also state what it will take to change or override the ground rules. Most often, extreme and highly specific circumstances are the only way to legally change the foundation of a Democracy. And even under such circumstances, a popular vote is usually called for - and usually, the vote has to be overwhelmingly in favour of change before it can happen. 2/3 or 3/4 in favour is the norm.
So it's not like the rules of the game can't be changed. It's just that smart people know it's best to make it damn hard, unless they want some silly, but murderous fad to size the population for a few years and cause a complete breakdown of the society.
Greenlander
10-07-2005, 03:04
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
-Benjamin Franklin
Man I love that quote...
Yeah, I heard a bunch of slave owners in the south used to say that too, when their right to property and state government was being over-ruled by the federal governemnt... :rolleyes:
The original question needs to state what the civil liberties are, before we can say whether or not society has a right to restrict them. Slave owning used to be a civil right, protected by the constitution.
Vodka Bob
10-07-2005, 03:07
It strikes me as odd that the majority has frequently had the power to restrict the freedoms and liberties of others.
Yeah, I heard a bunch of slave owners in the south used to say that too, when their right to property and state government was being over-ruled by the federal governemnt... :rolleyes:
The original question needs to state what the civil liberties are, before we can say whether or not society has a right to restrict them. Slave owning used to be a civil right, protected by the constitution.
Yes, and slaveowning infringed upon the rights of other humans. (Not to go into it in too much depth, but there was no contradiction because they weren't regarded as on the same level as white people.) Ergo slaveowning is an illegal 'right'.
Nationalist Mongolia
10-07-2005, 03:13
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
-Benjamin Franklin
very good, how bout this Ben Franklin
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"--Benjamin Franklin
Vodka Bob
10-07-2005, 03:16
very good, how bout this Ben Franklin
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"--Benjamin Franklin
I love that quote, it is a perfect description of the present state of democracy, at least in the US.
Mentholyptus
10-07-2005, 03:33
Or what about seat belt usage? Should that be disallowed?
It should be, because it can infringe on others' rights and hurt them.
First, and most obviously, it hurts the family/friends of the seat belt non-wearer, when he/she gets in an accident and either dies or has high medical bills.
Second, it hurts everyone who has insurance, because costly accidents (like when people don't wear seat belts) drive up premiums.
Third, and least common: if you hit something/someone when you aren't wearing a seat belt, you can go through the windshield and damage property/injure people with your flying body.
The Similized world
10-07-2005, 04:45
Yeah, I heard a bunch of slave owners in the south used to say that too, when their right to property and state government was being over-ruled by the federal governemnt... :rolleyes:
The original question needs to state what the civil liberties are, before we can say whether or not society has a right to restrict them. Slave owning used to be a civil right, protected by the constitution.
It's not that hard a question. Assuming all are equal, civil rights becomes pretty obvious
1. The right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.
2. Freedom of speech & choice
If they conflict, 1 overrules 2 or society disentegrates.
Depending on the society, the 1st one can mean a vast number of different things. In America, for example, people don't believe that education is a natural extension of "the persuit of happiness". In Sweden, people think it is.
Cave-hermits
10-07-2005, 06:01
very good, how bout this Ben Franklin
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"--Benjamin Franklin
sorry, cant remember exactly, but wasnt there a second line to that one, something to the affect of
"and xxxxxxxx is a well-armed sheep/lamb contesting that decision"
or something along those lines?