"The destruction of freedom"

[aimeeandbeatles]

This morning I was reading a letter to the editor in one of trhe newspapers. This person sent a letter about that a law that I didn't know about should be repealed. I found myself agreeing with the person until they said something along the lines of "This law destroys freedom!"
I immediately lost all respect for him.

Why, you ask? Well, "destroying freedom" is incredibly vague. What freedoms? If you think about it, any law "destroys freedom." The laws of gravity destroy the freedom to float around in the air. Civil rights laws destroys the freedom of racist people to legally prevent an ethnic person from voting.

Second, I want concrete reasons on why this law should be repealed, not that "it destroys freedom."

The third reason is that 99% of the time, it's hyperbole, and I have little respect for hyperbole.

Thoughts?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It would have to be a very intrusive, extensive and authoritarian law to have it destroy freedom.

The law can still be bad, but you're right. It's a huge hyperbole and should be pointed and laughed at.

 

[holy king]

"freedom", like "democracy", "equality" and many more is a word that has been used and much more so abused so often and by people with so many different goals that it virtually means nothing any more.

thus, in above newpaper, it is used quite correctly as nothing but a throwaway notion everyone reflexively ignores.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I don't know if I can give my thoughts about it until I know what the law is.

also, laws against murder destroy freedom to kill people.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Well I don't find what the law was really relevant to the discussion (which is why I didn't say what it was, in case the topic drifted to that thing). The discussion is about people claiming certain laws destroy their freedom when it's hyperbole.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

It is an unavoidable contradiction. While a law in place does restrict the freedom of one, it protects the freedoms of others (theoretically).

Example, a law against theft does limit the freedom of somebody to gain property by any means necessary, it protects the property rights of those who earned said property through legal means. At that point, it becomes a matter of what takes precedence; which is already decided in a society that criminalizes theft.

Simple summary, law simultaneously protects and limits individual freedom.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've begun assuming that these people believe "freedom" to be a rare and endangered species of bird in the Amazon rainforest, which such-and-such-legislation will some indirectly threatens with extinction. That way, at least I can pretend that they have some clumsy internal logic, which saves my desk a few forehead-dents.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Quite frankly I tend not to pay much attention to different talks about freedom as it is usually not the concept I am interested in.
Look at freedom to vote in political election. How many centuries it took to get these civil rights? And how many people just ignore these elections? Its like what they say: there is no difference between not having the capacity and having it but not to put it in use.
I need the kind of freedom which will make me free even when I am bounded by many responsibilities and not the freedom of rich man who feels he can have anything and who is all the time insecure about loosing his wealth and greedy for more...

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

I need the kind of freedom which will make me free even when I am bounded by many responsibilities...

Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand anyway, or at least they should. There are plenty of times it seems that people want something without consequence, good or bad, and I don't think it's possible.

 

[Hygro]

Sometimes non-professional writers don't know how to end their work and so they think they need to tie it into the broadest, most severe greater context.

 

[Berzerker]

This morning I was reading a letter to the editor in one of trhe newspapers. This person sent a letter about that a law that I didn't know about should be repealed. I found myself agreeing with the person until they said something along the lines of "This law destroys freedom!"
I immediately lost all respect for him.

Why, you ask? Well, "destroying freedom" is incredibly vague. What freedoms? If you think about it, any law "destroys freedom." The laws of gravity destroy the freedom to float around in the air. Civil rights laws destroys the freedom of racist people to legally prevent an ethnic person from voting.

Second, I want concrete reasons on why this law should be repealed, not that "it destroys freedom."

The third reason is that 99% of the time, it's hyperbole, and I have little respect for hyperbole.

Thoughts?

I think you dont understand what the word freedom means... Not every law violates freedom and gravity and voting aint got nothin to do with it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The gravity thing was in jest.

 

[azzaman333]

Your problem is that you took a letter to the editor seriously. Those things are good for a laugh, nothing more.

 

[Artifis]

Meh. Hyperbole is hyperbole.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Well I've also seen such "hyperbole" in other places.

 

[BvBPL]

No law can limit freedom. Freedom is free will, ie the ability to do what you want. Laws do not limit free will, instead they apply consequences to the actions you take of your free will.

Many laws ensure freedom. Laws against homicide, for example, help my freedom by establishing penalties for me being murdered. Any party is still free to murder me, however they must later answer to the justice system for my murder.

Laws may restrict rights, liberties, and privileges, one of which is probably more what the author of your letter intends. Would you accept the letter if it said “this law threatens liberty”?

 

[amadeus]

aimee, where do our rights come from?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

No law can limit freedom. Freedom is free will, ie the ability to do what you want. Laws do not limit free will, instead they apply consequences to the actions you take of your free will.

Many laws ensure freedom. Laws against homicide, for example, help my freedom by establishing penalties for me being murdered. Any party is still free to murder me, however they must later answer to the justice system for my murder.

Laws may restrict rights, liberties, and privileges, one of which is probably more what the author of your letter intends. Would you accept the letter if it said “this law threatens liberty”?

Well if the law actually did that... It was something pretty minor but I don't want this thread to turn into a debate on the law.

aimee, where do our rights come from?

Well in Canada they are written in a law-book. But the law they wanted repealed didn't break the rights in the thing.

 

[BvBPL]

I think that the prevailing philosophical view is that our rights are inherent and are not granted by statutory, Constitutional, or other political enterprises, although such enterprises may ensure, deny, or otherwise act upon those rights. While not an expert in Canadian politics, I find it unlikely that the national political understanding of rights is that said rights are granted through a specific document of any sort. Rights may be delineated in such a document, which is literally what you’re saying, but not an answer to amadeus’s question.

That said, it also seems possible to me that the Canadian understanding of rights is that they are granted by the Crown, although that’s an extremely archaic understanding of rights.

 

[de Maistre]

I think that the prevailing philosophical view is that our rights are inherent and are not granted by statutory, Constitutional, or other political enterprises, although such enterprises may ensure, deny, or otherwise act upon those rights. While not an expert in Canadian politics, I find it unlikely that the national political understanding of rights is that said rights are granted through a specific document of any sort. Rights may be delineated in such a document, which is literally what you’re saying, but not an answer to amadeus’s question.

That said, it also seems possible to me that the Canadian understanding of rights is that they are granted by the Crown, although that’s an extremely archaic understanding of rights.

If rights are inherent, why do some countries have different rights than others. and how do we divine which rights are inherent?