wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/08/83)
Tim Maroney has advocated the use of "liberty" (which he defines as "the ability to do things") as a basis for making laws. I realize that this is net.politics, but I am going to challenge him on philosophical grounds (since that is where my knowledge lies. I have no experience at law-making.). The first issue to debate is his definition of liberty. First, I will assume explicitly (as I think he does implicitly) that "doing nothing" is in itself doing something. Therefore, liberty includes the freedom to not do things. Now, my first objection comes of the fact that some people inherently can do fewer things than others. By Tim's definition, this means that they have less liberty. But it seems counter-intuitive to me to say that a man in a wheelchair has less liberty than I simply by virtue of that fact. (For the record, I regard liberty as a state of mind, but that's a really philosophical discussion.) Tim says: In practice, this means that it may be neccessary to deliberately restrict an individual's liberty if it is probable that this person will restrict the liberties of others. Now this is a \real/ can of worms! How can anyone tell that I am likely to restrict someone's liberties? Who is to do the deciding? How much of my liberty can they take away? For how long? Obviously, there are good applications of this principle (I would very much like the drunk drivers' liberties restricted), but it is too barebones a principle to have much use. And even those cases where I might use it, Tim's reasoning is faulty. I would restrict the liberty of someone NOT because I think the person "will restrict the liberties of others," but because of past behavior. I see no reason for anything more than this when deciding on a basis for legislation. The principle of liberty is sufficient to derive all fair laws. Hmm. It's not obvious to me that this is the case. Is it a restriction of liberty for me to steal $100 from a millionaire? Or one steak from a grocery store? Perhaps I'm not seeing clearly, so I'll let Tim respond. --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex