To what extent does freedom go?

The Volt

Since the birth of Western Philosophy, people liek Descartes and Kant have stressed the importance of individualism and freedom. To what extent though should freedom go? It seems bound by morals and obediance to social law. If there are wo seperate freedoms on a collision course, what barriers exist and what do they mean?

Goduznt Xzst

Well all people should be free to act however they want as long as their actions do not detrimentally affect the freedoms of others.

In practice this is easier said than done though. You could detrimentally affect the freedom of another via proxy and then there's the defining of who is entitled to these freedoms (i.e. abortion)

In regards to your postulated "collision course" of 2 freedoms, perhaps an example would help.

Cannibal Ox

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

Well all people should be free to act however they want as long as their actions do not detrimentally affect the freedoms of others.

I would say that's legislating for freedom, not actual freedom. Thinking of freedom in that way is thinking of how to have freedom in a social context. It isn't actually what freedom is, but how to legislate for freedom in a context where there are multiple actors with multiple claims to freedom. It also presupposes that we have freedom, which can't be presupposed unless you can disprove determinism which is, frankly, a pain in the bollock

Ignoring ultra views of determinism, because I can't be bothered to deal with it, I would say that freedom is the ability to make choices. Something like Bourdieu talks about, structuring structures structuring structures and all that, a sort of internal external dialectic that takes account of external (and internal? If you buy Freud or psychoanalysis then you'd need to include that) pressures, and mediates them with an internal agency that creates our choices.

In that kind of understanding freedom can't "go". An individual's freedom, or ability to make choices, is engaged/restrained by society, but it also has an agency of its own that helps to determine what choices are made. You can spend your whole life being told stealing is wrong, but if you end up starving and destitute with a pie that isn't yours sitting in front of you, your probably going to eat the pie despite the years of social pressure to not eat the pie.

Can two choices collide? Sure. But we should be able to mediate between those choices and pick one that's benifical to all. Not that it happens a lot. More often the one with more power wins through, and their choice is the dominant one.

Maybe.

The Volt

By determinism do you mean pre-determined events? From a higher entity?

"Opposition to determinism promotes that without belief in uncaused free will, humans will not have reason to behave ethically"

Could a society develop overtime where people genuinely don't believe in free will? It's a scary thought

I would agree that freedom has an agency of its own. Would you agree that freedom is completely attached to moral law?

philologos

There would be absolutely no point of a moral law if all things were determined. If people have no choice, there is no reason why one would need to be rebuked or punished depending on severity for their actions.

I think this is why Kant regarded freedom as a postulate.

Cannibal Ox

Voltwad wrote:

By determinism do you mean pre-determined events? From a higher entity?

By ultra determinism I mean something like an extreme biological determinism where all agency is removed from the subject.

I don't really mean just pre-determined events. I mean that external factors like ethnicity, class, gender, social norms, etc., etc. are a "force" in determining your immediate choices. Not just external factors either. Past experiences in a subjects life can determine events to, so, say a traumatic experience in your childhood, a past relationship you had with someone, the relationship between your parents, etc., etc., can all have an impact on your immediate choices. But there is also agency/free will involved in those choices.

Voltwad wrote:

Could a society develop overtime where people genuinely don't believe in free will?

I think its unlikely, life is far to chaotic. If people's positions within a society were genuinely pre-determined, and they seamlessly slotted in to various positions in the division of labour within society without confusion, then it could work. But, that's pretty unlikely, no? All you'd need is one person to refuse what has been pre-determined for them and the whole system falls apart.

Actually, thinking about, 1984 is kind of like a society where the working class are in a pre-determined society. Not entirely, but there's some similarities in that individuals jobs, marriages, beliefs etc., etc., are all pre-determined by Big Brother.

Goduznt Xzst

Voltwad wrote: »

By determinism do you mean pre-determined events? From a higher entity?

You'd be talking about fatalism or in the religious sense, predestination.

Determinism is a little more relaxed than either of those two.

The ethical argument that if determinism where true humans would be amoral monsters does not account for the evolutionary incentives for ethicality and morality.

ChocolateSauce

The farthest extent to which individual freedom should go is as far as it can without infringing on the freedom and safety of another, simply put.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The farthest extent to which individual freedom should go is as far as it can without infringing on the freedom and safety of another, simply put.

I take it you would subscribe to utilitarianism / consequentialism then?
Calculating pain and pleasure?

Cannibal Ox

ChocolateSauce wrote:

The farthest extent to which individual freedom should go is as far as it can without infringing on the freedom and safety of another, simply put.

I love J.S Mill, despite some of his flaws, and I really like On Liberty, but I dunno if that kind of utilitarianism hasn't drifted into the realm of idealism. Mill was writing in a time when you didn't have globalisation to the same extent as you do now. Mill wasn't living in a city where there are multiple groups with varying, and sometimes antagonistic, cultures living side by side. I'd argue that in the West societies are more divided now then they've ever been, not just between the common interest and self interest but by group interests too. I'm not sure if Mill's argument still holds out in this kind of world.

He didn't have the problem, for example, of the minarets in Switzerland. Those minarets aren't harming anybodies freedom, yet the Swiss voted against them and denied the muslim population their freedom of religion. Yet according to their democratic principles it's perfectly exceptable. If we take Mill's arguement, then the Swiss have acted in a manner that denies another groups freedom for no just reason and the law should be repealed.

There's a line from On Liberty that I love, and it goes something like "If all the world except one had one opinion then they would have no more right in silencing that one then that one would have in silencing all of them."

I think that's a beautiful sentiment in terms of freedom of speech. He qualifies it by saying exactly what you've said in that quote, as long as that freedom of speech isn't used to injure another then let people express their opinions. But when you look around the West now you see countries like the US, like the UK, like France and even Ireland (with the Blasphemy law) that are denying peoples freedom based not on Mills principle of preventing harm, but on an almost authoritarian basis of silencing speech.

So how do you get around that? How do you legislate for freedom in a world where most governments are trying their best to silence any antagonisms that might arise in a vain attempt to keep antagonisms between groups from spilling over? Over here, England, a month or so ago the BNP leader went on question time. People were up in arms saying he shouldn't be allowed a national platform. When he did go on the show he was made look a fool. But, there was a huge amount of people in this country didn't want him to express his opinion not because it would harm people but because they didn't agree with it.

I dunno, I'm just kind of playing around with this. I suppose what I'm wondering is whether what Mill tried to define as freedom, and which many governments and various revolutionaries would except as freedom, is now a radical definition of freedom. Is freedom now, as it is legislated for, not a tool of silencing people in deference to the most powerful groups in society? (various anti-religious, terrorism laws) Is it a defensive word? (They can take our lives, but they'll never take our frrrreeeeddddooommmmm!) Something that one group has, and another is trying to take away? (THERE TAKIN' OUR FREEDOMS!!1!) Is freedom only extended to the most powerful groups (the freedom to marry, why is that not extended to gays and lesbians?)? And if so, has freedom changed from being a thing of emancipation to a thing of oppression, and is the ability to claim possession of freedom actually a sign of an individual possessing a powerful position within society? Is freedom a kind of social/cultural capital?

Again, I'm messing around. I'm not really sure where most of that came from or if its on topic, or if anybody wants to reply to it, but I thought some of it might be interesting.

ChocolateSauce

First I'd like to say that I haven't read any of the philosophers (or any philosophy for that matter) mentioned above, and that I arrived at my conclusions by my own deduction rather than by an outside influence.

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

I'm not sure if Mill's argument still holds out in this kind of world.

I believe that the freedom I described is a universal value which must not limited by religion, culture or tradition. If Mill was arguing for the kind of freedom I argue for, then his work is more important now than it has been since WWII.

He didn't have the problem, for example, of the minarets in Switzerland. Those minarets aren't harming anybodies freedom, yet the Swiss voted against them and denied the muslim population their freedom of religion. Yet according to their democratic principles it's perfectly exceptable.

I'd say according to democratic principles it is perfectly legal. Acceptable, no. Democracy doesn't = freedom, it only equals the voice of the majority. If the majority is wrong (objectively impossible to say), then democracy is wrong. In practice, laws, for good or bad, limit freedom, and usually rightly so. In the same way, constitutions (like the magnificent US bill of rights) limit democracy specifically to protect the more important value of freedom. What happened in Switzerland was mob rule; the majority decided to limit the freedom of a religious group, something they should not be allowed to do.

Hopefully a court will overturn that decision.

There's a line from On Liberty that I love, and it goes something like "If all the world except one had one opinion then they would have no more right in silencing that one then that one would have in silencing all of them."

I love that one too, and I think it is one of the singularly most important sentiments that a human has ever expressed.

I think that's a beautiful sentiment in terms of freedom of speech. He qualifies it by saying exactly what you've said in that quote, as long as that freedom of speech isn't used to injure another then let people express their opinions. But when you look around the West now you see countries like the US, like the UK, like France and even Ireland (with the Blasphemy law) that are denying peoples freedom based not on Mills principle of preventing harm, but on an almost authoritarian basis of silencing speech.

So how do you get around that? How do you legislate for freedom in a world where most governments are trying their best to silence any antagonisms that might arise in a vain attempt to keep antagonisms between groups from spilling over? Over here, England, a month or so ago the BNP leader went on question time. People were up in arms saying he shouldn't be allowed a national platform. When he did go on the show he was made look a fool. But, there was a huge amount of people in this country didn't want him to express his opinion not because it would harm people but because they didn't agree with it.

I'm very concerned about the situation in the UK too. What can be done if a government tries to restrict your freedom of speech? First, the law should be argued on a public platform until repealed. If this cannot be done, it should be ignored. If this cannot be done (eg if the government starts punishing people), I would advocate armed insurrection with the employment of lethal force against the offending authority. It worked for the Americans in 1776 and gave birth to the constitution that I admire the most, borne of enlightenment values and unmatched anywhere. I'd be a supporter of the maxim "live free or die".

I dunno, I'm just kind of playing around with this. I suppose what I'm wondering is whether what Mill tried to define as freedom, and which many governments and various revolutionaries would except as freedom, is now a radical definition of freedom. Is freedom now, as it is legislated for, not a tool of silencing people in deference to the most powerful groups in society? (various anti-religious, terrorism laws) Is it a defensive word? (They can take our lives, but they'll never take our frrrreeeeddddooommmmm!) Something that one group has, and another is trying to take away? (THERE TAKIN' OUR FREEDOMS!!1!) Is freedom only extended to the most powerful groups (the freedom to marry, why is that not extended to gays and lesbians?)? And if so, has freedom changed from being a thing of emancipation to a thing of oppression, and is the ability to claim possession of freedom actually a sign of an individual possessing a powerful position within society? Is freedom a kind of social/cultural capital?

Again, I'm messing around. I'm not really sure where most of that came from or if its on topic, or if anybody wants to reply to it, but I thought some of it might be interesting.

One "freedom" which seems to be increasingly invoked is the freedom not to be offended. This "freedom" is being used to restrict the freedom of others to offend in a very real and serious way, to the point that in April (I think) the UN lost all moral credibility by declaring that defamation of religion was a human rights abuse when in fact it is a human right. The freedom not to be offended has been and is being used to restrict the much more real and important freedom of others to speak their minds.

The Volt

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

First I'd like to say that I haven't read any of the philosophers (or any philosophy for that matter) mentioned above, and that I arrived at my conclusions by my own deduction rather than by an outside influence.



I believe that the freedom I described is a universal value which must not limited by religion, culture or tradition. If Mill was arguing for the kind of freedom I argue for, then his work is more important now than it has been since WWII.



I'd say according to democratic principles it is perfectly legal. Acceptable, no. Democracy doesn't = freedom, it only equals the voice of the majority. If the majority is wrong (objectively impossible to say), then democracy is wrong. In practice, laws, for good or bad, limit freedom, and usually rightly so. In the same way, constitutions (like the magnificent US bill of rights) limit democracy specifically to protect the more important value of freedom. What happened in Switzerland was mob rule; the majority decided to limit the freedom of a religious group, something they should not be allowed to do.

Hopefully a court will overturn that decision.



I love that one too, and I think it is one of the singularly most important sentiments that a human has ever expressed.



I'm very concerned about the situation in the UK too. What can be done if a government tries to restrict your freedom of speech? First, the law should be argued on a public platform until repealed. If this cannot be done, it should be ignored. If this cannot be done (eg if the government starts punishing people), I would advocate armed insurrection with the employment of lethal force against the offending authority. It worked for the Americans in 1776 and gave birth to the constitution that I admire the most, borne of enlightenment values and unmatched anywhere. I'd be a supporter of the maxim "live free or die".




One "freedom" which seems to be increasingly invoked is the freedom not to be offended. This "freedom" is being used to restrict the freedom of others to offend in a very real and serious way, to the point that in April (I think) the UN lost all moral credibility by declaring that defamation of religion was a human rights abuse when in fact it is a human right. The freedom not to be offended has been and is being used to restrict the much more real and important freedom of others to speak their minds.

I think this is where one freedom enncroaches on another's right to go freely, in peace without insult. Good opinion though, that's the debate I'm looking for

Joe1919

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'd be a supporter of the maxim "live free or die".

Is there a danger here that you are thinking like a fundamentalist. i.e. You believe freedom is an absolute value. ???
Now the problem is, someone else will argue that equality and fairness is also an absolute value.
Now a third person will say, 'Hold on, there many situations where freedom and equality can't be reconciled' and we have to accept that sometimes we have to trade off one against another. (e.g. Berlin)
Hence, there has to be some type of value pluralism and toleration. Freedom might be your absolute value but it may not be mine.
However, we both could value freedom.

So I would tend to agree with the likes of Berlin, who would argue that human have a range of values, often contradictory (pluralism) and the mistake and problem is thinking in absolute terms. Sometimes we have to give up a little freedom in order to be fair. For example, a parent give up a lot of freedom to be fair to his/her child.

Sometimes we confuse freedom with power. Freedom is not just an egotistical freedom to do whatever I want to do. There are other notions of freedom.
The greatest freedom of all is to be free from yourself, not to be a slave to yourself and your own desires.

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/berlin.html

ChocolateSauce

Joe1919 wrote: »

Is there a danger here that you are thinking like a fundamentalist. i.e. You believe freedom is an absolute value. ???

None at all. I have arrived at my position via a series of logically deduced steps, each of which I can rationally back up. I also don't believe that there cannot be a situation where freedom shouldn't be restricted. I was speaking of normal circumstances however. As I also said, laws for better or worse restrict freedom, like the freedom to drink and drive. This is a freedom that shouldn't exist as it can materially and measureably harm another.

Now the problem is, someone else will argue that equality and fairness is also an absolute value.
Now a third person will say, 'Hold on, there many situations where freedom and equality can't be reconciled' and we have to accept that sometimes we have to trade off one against another. (e.g. Berlin)
Hence, there has to be some type of value pluralism and toleration. Freedom might be your absolute value but it may not be mine.
However, we both could value freedom.

So I would tend to agree with the likes of Berlin, who would argue that human have a range of values, often contradictory (pluralism) and the mistake and problem is thinking in absolute terms. Sometimes we have to give up a little freedom in order to be fair. For example, a parent give up a lot of freedom to be fair to his/her child.

Sometimes we confuse freedom with power. Freedom is not just an egotistical freedom to do whatever I want to do. There are other notions of freedom.
The greatest freedom of all is to be free from yourself, not to be a slave to yourself and your own desires.

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/berlin.html

I think we may be talking about different meanings of the word. I'm talking about freedom from government interference. Of course we give up our freedoms by doing certain things, like having children and so on, and that is an entirely different line of thought from what I've been meaning. Being free doesn't mean we don't have responsibilites; the opposite in fact. By being free it means we have to take more responsibility than if we weren't.

In terms of speech, this might mean refraining from saying something that would stoke trouble. The important thing is that you have the right to say it, and that if you do you won't be punished by the law.

Voltwad wrote:

I think this is where one freedom enncroaches on another's right to go freely, in peace without insult. Good opinion though, that's the debate I'm looking for

A person has the right to walk down the street without being heckled (something I certainly agree with), but they don't legally or morally have a right to silence a person using a medium to communicate, even and especially if what that person is saying is deeply hurtful and insulting.

silverharp

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As I also said, laws for better or worse restrict freedom, like the freedom to drink and drive. This is a freedom that shouldn't exist as it can materially and measureably harm another.

You are saying that freedoms can be restricted using the criminal law system where the statistical chance of an event happening is increased. Would you agree with the mobile phone rules when driving? or firearms restrictions for private citizens?
Just trying to get a sense do you have an axiomatic approach to your core beliefs where logical deductions are self evident or more a pragmatic approach which is inclined to be individually centered as opposed to statist.

Joe1919

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

None at all. I have arrived at my position via a series of logically deduced steps, each of which I can rationally back up. I also don't believe that there cannot be a situation where freedom shouldn't be restricted. I was speaking of normal circumstances however. As I also said, laws for better or worse restrict freedom, like the freedom to drink and drive. This is a freedom that shouldn't exist as it can materially and measureably harm another.

I think we may be talking about different meanings of the word. I'm talking about freedom from government interference. Of course we give up our freedoms by doing certain things, like having children and so on, and that is an entirely different line of thought from what I've been meaning. Being free doesn't mean we don't have responsibilites; the opposite in fact. By being free it means we have to take more responsibility than if we weren't.

In terms of speech, this might mean refraining from saying something that would stoke trouble. The important thing is that you have the right to say it, and that if you do you won't be punished by the law.

A person has the right to walk down the street without being heckled (something I certainly agree with), but they don't legally or morally have a right to silence a person using a medium to communicate, even and especially if what that person is saying is deeply hurtful and insulting.

But responsibility often does not come natural. Its something that often has to be learned or forced on us. We often have to be made take responsibility.

Government interference (e.g. Laws) is often for the good. For example, the government often takes taxes off people in order to re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor. We need the government to regulate driving and speed limits to keep down road deaths. Similarly, during outbreaks of contagious human and animal diseases, governments must step in and limit the spread of the disease by limiting the freedom of the individual to travel.

We also have government laws stating what can and can not be said in public. We can do harm and damage in our speech. There are laws against defamation, incitement, blasphemy etc. There is no absolute right to free speech. This is 'nonsense-on-sticks' (to quote Jeremy Bentham). What are rights? Right are only of use because the government or law gives you these rights and enforces these rights on your behalf. i.e. The government steps in and interferes with the freedom of another on your behalf to enforce the right. Do rights exist in nature?

However, the rich also gain from law in that the legal system allows the rich to keep the property that they hold from being taken by the poor. It cuts both ways, some would argue that it was always the case that the rich gain more than the poor from government interference. ('justice is the advantage of the stronger' Thrasymachus)
The ownership of property is after all only a social construct. Indeed, governments often put property before people, as was the case with the original American constitution that defended slavery because the slaves were the property of the masters. Was this just? You might think so but many black American slaves found no justice in a constitution that put the freedom of the master above the freedom of the slave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrasymachus

ChocolateSauce

Joe1919 wrote: »

But responsibility often does not come natural. Its something that often has to be learned or forced on us. We often have to be made take responsibility.

Government interference (e.g. Laws) is often for the good.

I did say this myself. The danger is that there is a very fine line between what is acceptable government interference. Ie. Can it be justified? The greatest enemy of the people is their government, and unless it is kept of a tight leash things can get out of hand, as is the case in places like Zimbabwe.

We also have government laws stating what can and can not be said in public. We can do harm and damage in our speech. There are laws against defamation, incitement, blasphemy etc.

Any law against blasphemy is a human rights abuse as far as I'm concerned. We aren't allowed libelous defamation because it would wrongly hurt another person- an instance where ones' right to speech would infringe on another's right to life in peace from slander. But if the slander is accurate and true, it is fine.

There is no absolute right to free speech. This is 'nonsense-on-sticks' (to quote Jeremy Bentham). What are rights? Right are only of use because the government or law gives you these rights and enforces these rights on your behalf.

That is a school of thought I do not subscribe to. There is a difference between civil and human rights; the right to social welfare, or any right which requires positive action by a government, is a civil right. Human rights we are born with, and by virtue of being sentient we possess them. They cannot be "granted", because no-one has the ability to give them (The US bill of rights doesn't actually confer any rights at all, it merely assumes that they exist and forbids the government from interfering with them unjustly). No government has to act to give these rights, but instead has to make a concerted action to take them away. If the government does nothing, the rights are preserved. Contrast this with a civil right, whereby inaction renders the right useless.

However, the rich also gain from law in that the legal system allows the rich to keep the property that they hold from being taken by the poor. It cuts both ways, some would argue that it was always the case that the rich gain more than the poor from government interference. ('justice is the advantage of the stronger' Thrasymachus)
The ownership of property is after all only a social construct. Indeed, governments often put property before people, as was the case with the original American constitution that defended slavery because the slaves were the property of the masters. Was this just? You might think so but many black American slaves found no justice in a constitution that put the freedom of the master above the freedom of the slave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrasymachus

Who gains materially and who doesn't from freedom (in a system free of abuse) isn't really my concern. If all is fair, then some people will do better than others by virtue of the unequal nature of human ability. In a system not free from abuse (ie all real systems), the thing to do is to tackle the abuse, not re-assess the value of liberty.

Joe1919

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That is a school of thought I do not subscribe to. There is a difference between civil and human rights; the right to social welfare, or any right which requires positive action by a government, is a civil right. Human rights we are born with, and by virtue of being sentient we possess them. They cannot be "granted", because no-one has the ability to give them (The US bill of rights doesn't actually confer any rights at all, it merely assumes that they exist and forbids the government from interfering with them unjustly). No government has to act to give these rights, but instead has to make a concerted action to take them away. If the government does nothing, the rights are preserved. Contrast this with a civil right, whereby inaction renders the right useless.

Indeed, in Ireland, a person is considered to have human rights before they are born and hence abortion is not permissible by law.

The problem is that people's opinions vary as regards human rights. And human rights can run into conflict with one another. e.g. The right of life of the unborn versus right of choice of the mother etc.
So what is or is not a human right has to be agreed upon and hence we can get a certain amount of 'cultural relativism' in deciding the 'norms'.
Also peoples ideas about 'human rights' may change over time.
Hence it is generally acknowledged that there are no 'absolute' human rights.
For example
'Sixth, human rights are high-priority norms. Maurice Cranston held that human rights are matters of "paramount importance" and their violation "a grave affront to justice" (Cranston 1967). This does not mean, however, that we should take human rights to be absolute. As James Griffin says, human rights should be understood as "resistant to trade-offs, but not too resistant" (Griffin 2001b). The high priority of human rights needs support from a plausible connection with fundamental human interests or powerful normative considerations.'
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

Because rights are not absolute, there is a hope that if all the countries in the world could agree to a common set of rights, we would have a 'universal' set of rights.

Anyhow, to conclude my discussion on this point, if rights were absolute, there would be no need for so much debate and discussion about them and hence (imo) we have to accept that people may have various opinions and beliefs (about rights) that are at some variance to our own.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

.......I would advocate armed insurrection with the employment of lethal force against the offending authority.........

Some would argue that the right of life must be the greatest of all human rights, much greater than say that of holding property or unrestricted speech etc.

silverharp

On the issue of free speech, logically there doesnt need to be an additional right to it. Its a product of property rights. For example one does not have the right to come into my living room to give a speech. Nor to I have any right to shout "Fire" in a cinema. In both cases the propert rights of the owners would have been infringed.

Cannibal Ox

ChocolateSauce wrote:

First I'd like to say that I haven't read any of the philosophers (or any philosophy for that matter) mentioned above, and that I arrived at my conclusions by my own deduction rather than by an outside influence.

You can find Mill's On Liberty here. It's not the worst piece of political philosophy ever written.

silverharp wrote:

On the issue of free speech, logically there doesnt need to be an additional right to it. Its a product of property rights.

If a man/woman is standing in the middle of the street, in public property, and starts shouting abuse at people, and encouraging others to start harming each other, then his/her freedom of speech is going to be ended incredibly quickly by the boot of an Gardai Siochana. I don't think, as it's conceived of, it is an issue of property so much as ensuring the greatest amount of freedom possible for an individual while being aware that they are in a social environment where others have freedoms as well.

ChocolateSauce

Joe1919 wrote: »

Indeed, in Ireland, a person is considered to have human rights before they are born and hence abortion is not permissible by law.

Yes, an interesting point is when two human rights come into conflict.

The problem is that people's opinions vary as regards human rights. And human rights can run into conflict with one another. e.g. The right of life of the unborn versus right of choice of the mother etc.
So what is or is not a human right has to be agreed upon and hence we can get a certain amount of 'cultural relativism' in deciding the 'norms'.
Also peoples ideas about 'human rights' may change over time.
Hence it is generally acknowledged that there are no 'absolute' human rights.
For example
'Sixth, human rights are high-priority norms. Maurice Cranston held that human rights are matters of "paramount importance" and their violation "a grave affront to justice" (Cranston 1967). This does not mean, however, that we should take human rights to be absolute. As James Griffin says, human rights should be understood as "resistant to trade-offs, but not too resistant" (Griffin 2001b). The high priority of human rights needs support from a plausible connection with fundamental human interests or powerful normative considerations.'
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

I accept this, and would also never insist that they be set in stone- if they are not open to scrutiny, then they are dogma. But I think that by and large the rights that I have come to know and as I understand them should not change, except perhaps to make them more inflexible (ironic indeed!). I would resist the great majority of cultural relativism regarding universal rights, though this resistence should be done on a case-by-case basis. I find cultural relativism in the area of universal rights dangerous and cowardly.

Because rights are not absolute, there is a hope that if all the countries in the world could agree to a common set of rights, we would have a 'universal' set of rights.

Anyhow, to conclude my discussion on this point, if rights were absolute, there would be no need for so much debate and discussion about them and hence (imo) we have to accept that people may have various opinions and beliefs (about rights) that are at some variance to our own.

Some varience in opinion is always welcome, so that one can get the fullest picture and make the best decision. They're not absolute as in "from "god"", but they are fairly close.

Some would argue that the right of life must be the greatest of all human rights, much greater than say that of holding property or unrestricted speech etc.

By that logic, the people of North Korea shouldn't overthrow their oppressors because Kim Jong Il et al's right to life outweighs the people's right to freedom. I don't agree, and reitirate that no-one has the right to take away/abuse human rights, and if they try the people they oppress have the right to stop them by any means nesscessary, though the steps taken should be proportionate: violence should only be used as a last resort, and only in retaliation for violence.

The US constitution make it illegal for the government to ban arms specifically to ensure that the people could overthrow it in a bloody revolution if it became tyrannical. As the only free nation in the world at the time, it was wholly understandable.

silverharp

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

If a man/woman is standing in the middle of the street, in public property, and starts shouting abuse at people, and encouraging others to start harming each other, then his/her freedom of speech is going to be ended incredibly quickly by the boot of an Gardai Siochana. I don't think, as it's conceived of, it is an issue of property so much as ensuring the greatest amount of freedom possible for an individual while being aware that they are in a social environment where others have freedoms as well.

Here the state/council is the proxy owner and one could assume that if the streets were formally the property rights of someone then the same/similar rules might be applied. However to tease it out , if some form of extremist hires a hall to give an odeous speech and hand outs/sell leaflets , I would say the person is entitled to do this as he has not infringed anyones rights. I would be free of course to find the nearest property owner that will give me permission to have a counter rally if I felt strongly about it.

Cannibal Ox

silverharp wrote:

Here the state/council is the proxy owner and one could assume that if the streets were formally the property rights of someone then the same/similar rules might be applied.

What is the state :P

The state, in the democratic sense, is the people, and the property of the state is the people's property. It is common property. How can one person claim, without contradicting the democratic ideal, authority to silence another based on property rights in public property? If they did they would be operating under a distinctly undemocratic logos, in which case our understanding of freedom, as a democratic ideal, probably wouldn't exist.

silverharp

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

What is the state :P

The state, in the democratic sense, is the people, and the property of the state is the people's property. It is common property. How can one person claim, without contradicting the democratic ideal, authority to silence another based on property rights in public property? If they did they would be operating under a distinctly undemocratic logos, in which case our understanding of freedom, as a democratic ideal, probably wouldn't exist.

it does get confusing as we have public spaces but I think the more important issue is the abilty to express onesself regardless of the views being expressed. I would always take the view that in a statist framework the maximum right to free spreech should always be fought for as the tendancy of the state is to suit its own interests.
There was a case in the US I think in the 1990's where a book was published called "How to be a Hitman". Now using a Libertarian stance this book should not have been banned, at all stages it was private property and anyone that didnt like the content was free to not buy it and to argue against it. However enter the nanny state with its own agenda and mix of values and one ends up using scarce resources chasing shadows.