NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been thinking about this over the weekend after reading various posts with a common thread. Can we actually protect freedom and liberty by restricting it? This argument is the basis of the whole Affirmative Action debate. By placing restrictions on who gets chosen for a job or a college, we are protecting people's rights to get a job or into college. The same arguments can be said for capitalism. By restricting the free market by outlawing monopolies, we are actually protecting capitalism.

Other restrictions that help protect can be applied to almost anything, stiffling hate speech to protect free speech, Gun control to protect the right to bear arms, restricting religion to protect the freedom of religion, the list goes on and on.

Of course there are those who would disagree. Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination, capitalism with restriction is not a free market, and HOW DOES RESTRICTING GUNS PROTECT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? These are just some the the debate against the idea of restrictions for protection.

Now without going into arguments over specific issues, do you think that restrictions can protect our freedoms and liberties?

As for my opinion, I say yes there are times when restrictions can protect.

Benjamin Franklin said" My rights end at your nose."

I think thats all I need to say.

Affirmative action has nothing to do with freedoms

Banning hate speech only protects you from the freedom to not be offended by hate speech (if there is such a freedom).

Gun control has nothing to do with protecting liberties

Restrictions on the free market are bad for the economy, and has little to do with protecting freedoms.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by restricting religion.

Affirmative action has nothing to do with freedoms

Banning hate speech only protects you from the freedom to not be offended by hate speech (if there is such a freedom).

Gun control has nothing to do with protecting liberties

Restrictions on the free market are bad for the economy, and has little to do with protecting freedoms.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by restricting religion.

Taking "One nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer out of school in the name of Seperation of Church and State.

Taking "One nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer out of school in the name of Seperation of Church and State.

To be fair, there are many non-Christians who would object to reciting "under God" or praying. While I do believe people should be allowed to do so voluntarily, of their volition - no one should be forced to do so.

Taking "One nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer out of school in the name of Seperation of Church and State.

Well I don't really see what that has to do with protecting freedom.

Nobody is suggesting that restricting a right will protect that right. The idea behind restricting rights is usually to reduce conflicts with other rights.

Taking "One nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer out of school in the name of Seperation of Church and State.

That's not a restriction. That's the government changing it's policies to fit the ideals it should follow. if you really think the government is restricting your religious freedom by not teaching your religion in public schools, you are an idiot.

I have been thinking about this over the weekend after reading various posts with a common thread. Can we actually protect freedom and liberty by restricting it? This argument is the basis of the whole Affirmative Action debate. By placing restrictions on who gets chosen for a job or a college, we are protecting people's rights to get a job or into college. The same arguments can be said for capitalism. By restricting the free market by outlawing monopolies, we are actually protecting capitalism.

Other restrictions that help protect can be applied to almost anything, stiffling hate speech to protect free speech, Gun control to protect the right to bear arms, restricting religion to protect the freedom of religion, the list goes on and on.

Of course there are those who would disagree. Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination, capitalism with restriction is not a free market, and HOW DOES RESTRICTING GUNS PROTECT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? These are just some the the debate against the idea of restrictions for protection.

Now without going into arguments over specific issues, do you think that restrictions can protect our freedoms and liberties?

As for my opinion, I say yes there are times when restrictions can protect.

Yes, the case that I underlined is very important to our freedoms, we don't want anyone becoming as powerful as a king do we?

However, many of the other restrictions do not protect our freedoms.

Taking "One nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer out of school in the name of Seperation of Church and State.

Pffft, it was only put there to counter the godless commies during the Cold War.

If restrictions protect freedom, does that mean liberalization is against freedom?

In other words, liberals hate us for our freedoms!

Well I don't really see what that has to do with protecting freedom.

Some argue that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion (not that I necessarily believe that).

Yes, the case that I underlined is very important to our freedoms, we don't want anyone becoming as powerful as a king do we?

However, many of the other restrictions do not protect our freedoms.

A hard-core libertarian or anarcho-capitalist would disagree.

If restrictions protect freedom, does that mean liberalization is against freedom?

In other words, liberals hate us for our freedoms!

Actually, most the examples I gave are "liberal" ideas.



I've really got to learn how to make a poll. :(

I have been thinking about this over the weekend after reading various posts with a common thread. Can we actually protect freedom and liberty by restricting it? This argument is the basis of the whole Affirmative Action debate. By placing restrictions on who gets chosen for a job or a college, we are protecting people's rights to get a job or into college. The same arguments can be said for capitalism. By restricting the free market by outlawing monopolies, we are actually protecting capitalism.

Other restrictions that help protect can be applied to almost anything, stiffling hate speech to protect free speech, Gun control to protect the right to bear arms, restricting religion to protect the freedom of religion, the list goes on and on.

Of course there are those who would disagree. Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination, capitalism with restriction is not a free market, and HOW DOES RESTRICTING GUNS PROTECT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? These are just some the the debate against the idea of restrictions for protection.

Now without going into arguments over specific issues, do you think that restrictions can protect our freedoms and liberties?

As for my opinion, I say yes there are times when restrictions can protect.

I would say that it depends upon what we can prudently expect to accomplish. I've never seen a workable censorship plan, at least not one that didn't thoroughly undermine exactly what it purported to accomplish (free speech zones come readily to mind: they civilize demonstrations largely by making them impotent and ignorable, undermining their intent to force the powerful to pay attention to the vox populi). By the same token, I've never seen a deregulated industry that become either truly capitalistic or competitive or freed the people who pay for those services.

There may be some overarching principle of when to liberalize and "free" a sector from government regulation and when not to; I can't think of one at the moment. But from simple prudence, I know that sometimes it is a categorically bad idea, and sometimes it is indispensable.

S
Actually, most the examples I gave are "liberal" ideas.



I've really got to learn how to make a poll. :(

They may be "liberal" as defined by those who are "conservative," but really these terms have no real meaning anymore so I try to avoid them. I was being facetious.

But still... restriction of a freedom obviously doesn't protect THAT freedom, so at best, you have a net zero gain. Sacrifice one freedom for another, you haven't protected freedom overall, just prioritized one freedom as being more important than another. This, of course, even assuming that you haven't just restricted freedom and protected nothing.

They may be "liberal" as defined by those who are "conservative," but really these terms have no real meaning anymore so I try to avoid them. I was being facetious.

Ok, you got me there :)

But still... restriction of a freedom obviously doesn't protect THAT freedom, so at best, you have a net zero gain. Sacrifice one freedom for another, you haven't protected freedom overall, just prioritized one freedom as being more important than another. This, of course, even assuming that you haven't just restricted freedom and protected nothing.

I didn't think of if that way. I guess it comes down to priorities and compromise. What are you willing to give up to get what you want? I guess that question is the root of all politics. It definitely is at the core of the "social contract" theory.

I brought up the pont because of the Affirmative Action thread that was running around here last week. I found it interesting that the main argument for Affirmative Action seems to center around whether giving an oppressed group an advantage over the majority makes them equal. I am not sure. I can see both sides of the argument but I'm not sure which way is the right way.

I do believe that capitalism cannot survive if there are not some controls over the market. An uncontrolled market may work in theory, but in the real world, people are greedy and will destroy that which got them where they are just so they can make that extra buck.

Benjamin Franklin said" My rights end at your nose."

I think thats all I need to say.

Nobody is suggesting that restricting a right will protect that right. The idea behind restricting rights is usually to reduce conflicts with other rights.

I would say that it depends upon what we can prudently expect to accomplish. I've never seen a workable censorship plan, at least not one that didn't thoroughly undermine exactly what it purported to accomplish (free speech zones come readily to mind: they civilize demonstrations largely by making them impotent and ignorable, undermining their intent to force the powerful to pay attention to the vox populi). By the same token, I've never seen a deregulated industry that become either truly capitalistic or competitive or freed the people who pay for those services.

There may be some overarching principle of when to liberalize and "free" a sector from government regulation and when not to; I can't think of one at the moment. But from simple prudence, I know that sometimes it is a categorically bad idea, and sometimes it is indispensable.
All of the above quoted for truth. Thanks for making my argument, folks. :)

I would also add that I wish people would keep in mind that there are degrees of restriction. In general terms, the idea of "restriction" is something far more limiting than the idea of "regulation," which may be taken as a less restricting restriction. So, for example, in the case of capitalism, while it may be bad for an economy to restrict business, history shows that regulating business tends to be economically beneficial.

Restrictions should be applied very sparingly in a free society, but without some limitations, no society can endure. Thus, I am a big fan of prudent regulation.

I do believe that capitalism cannot survive if there are not some controls over the market. An uncontrolled market may work in theory, but in the real world, people are greedy and will destroy that which got them where they are just so they can make that extra buck.
True, and in the end the market would be dominated by a single business made up of the most cutthroat and greedy people around. That's not freedom.

No, restrictions restrict our freedom.

Man, that's got to be the simplest answer I've ever given to a question.

You can be safe or you can be free.

As we have seen with the Patriot? Act, the US has decided to give up freedom for safety.

In a few years the lack of freedom will seem normal.

1984 was 23 years ago. At the time, in the book, they were only monitoring government officials. See how things advance in 23 years.

How does restricting hate speech protect freedom of speech? I thought the intent leftists have in mind with THAT is to protect the "right" to not be discriminated against.

You can not protect something by taking it away.