Are We Really Free?

[GreatPigHookah]

No, we are not free.

When the government tells you what you can and cannot put into your own body in the privacy of your own home, you are not free.

When the government says they have no obligation to protect you, but removes the tools you can use to protect yourself, you are not free.

When the government can take your property away from you and sell it to someone else because they can get more taxes from them than from you, you are not free.

When the existing powers of the government conspire to prevent choices by making it nearly impossible for others to get on ballots, you are not free.

When the Federal government gets involved in the operations of baseball and the automobile industry, you are not free.

When the government is run by people who have become their own class of citizen, you are not free.

Don't get me wrong, we are very well off in this country, but that is no reason not to be vigilant. Our freedom was bought and paid for with blood. If we give it up so easily, how much blood will it take to get it back? Edited February 19, 2009 by GreatPigHookah

[newjacksm]

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a hefty in' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five

[SuburbanSmoker]

Freedom is a state of mind and nothing else. your only as free as the society that your socialized in allows you to be. From the minute your born, society is at work molding you to be what they believe is the ideal person, race, sex, class. Its why boys receive blue blankets, and girls receive pink. Just a lil food for thought.

[judgeposer]

If we mean by "free" the common notion of "free will," that means, as rational agents, we have control over our decisions (and to some extent actions), then to a large extent, I think we have to admit that we're free agents - in that rational activity presupposes free will.

Despite the diversity of takes on this issue throughout philosophy, such as determinism, compatiblism, incompatibilism, our society still tends to hold individual actors (us) responsible for our actions, though our respective culpability can vary. This idea of moral responsibility too requires us to believe in free will.

Even psychology differentiates our actions between conditioned and determined ones - conditioned actions as those affected by some extraneous factors and determined actions as effected by extraneous factors.

Simply because our government makes many decisions on our behalf doesn't mean anything sigificant, I don't believe. We do, in theory, and to a great extent in practice, control government's decision-making. The pervasiveness of those decisions, or the time it takes to reform, undue, or otherwise change government can give rise to the belief that our freedom has limitations, which it does, but certainly not to the extent we can say we don't enjoy freedom.

[Dr. B]

quality post judge. Goes back to what I briefly mentioned about desiring a more efficient and representative government.

If you** and a small group of like-minded individuals decided to flee our nation and inhabit an unpopulated island, you would eventually construct first social norms and morays and then translate those practices into law. You would confer and agree, through compromise, on a certain set of enforceable regulations regarding the interactions between people, but would remain unconstrained in your own privacy.

What we have in our country now is essential the same practice. The difference being how long it has had to evolve, the wide spectrum of ideals, and the massive population of interests to be represented in a single entity. The natural progression of this practice would be semi-proactive decisions regarding your freedom in privacy to slowly erode it in order to protect the interests of subjects when they are interacting. Example: Consensus dictates that it is not just to rob another citizen of property => addicted drug users, when they fiend for more will go to any means to acquire it or money to buy it - they turn to robbery => To limit the number of robberies, the use of drugs is prohibited => to curb the supply of drugs, the manufacturing of addictive drugs is prohibited in any instance. You now do not have the freedom to consume or manufacture the drug in the privacy of your own home, for the threat that you could endanger others.

What it boils down to: Would you rather have a turbulent era of trial and error with (for this example) drugs and drug users and all the costs associated with it in order to preserve your true freedom; or would you prefer to be proactive and limit your freedom slightly so that you can not have to worry about being robbed everywhere you go (at least not to the same degree as in the other instance) and spend your time being productive or enjoying other things (like your financial security and life)

My only ambition in exploring the logical origin of legislative patterns is to try and convey to yall** that it is not as simple as a government saying "Don't do that!" or "That's ok"; You are the government - If you don't like something, change it. You are selling yourself short by talking but not acting. Do your homework, do your research, and make a campaign to convince other people that the assumptions which led to the undesirable law were unfounded. That... You are free to do.

** = you who cares to read this. Edited February 20, 2009 by Dr. B

[Sonthert]

Well, yes, but ultimately, we have to accept certain sacrifices of freedom to live in a civilized country.

What are freedoms? I'd define them roughly as rights in reserve. What are our rights? Depends on who you talk to...

If we define rights as what the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution defines them as, I would say not. Freedom of speech is curtailed, freedom to keep and bear arms is curtailed, Habeas Corpus can still be suspended, people are required in this country to give up their rights under the fourth amendment to unreasonable search and seizure for any asundry laundry list of reasons. The fifth amendment is bent so that Grand Juries can compel you to testify or throw you in prison, the same way they did in Europe 1000 years ago, the very thing the founding fathers wanted stopped by adding the clause into the fifth amendment. In Texas there have been counties stopping people and threatening to charge them with felonies unless they gave over all of their money under the forfeiture for drug offenses laws, even though they committed no crime. Its been heard of in California, too. The tenth amendment is mashed up for a number of reasons, too. If we can say that the most basic declaration of rights in the United States isn't adhered to, and those rights aren't respected and are abrogated by laws veiled in the public's best interest...how could anybody make the reasonable argument we are free? That is, if our rights, or the rights of our fellow Americans, are routinely curtailed, what definition of freedom could explain no guarantee of rights? If one person can drive through Shelby County Texas, get jacked by the cops of all their money, having had no trial, having committed no crime, then we are all the poorer for it in terms of ourrights so how can we be free?

I would also go further and say if you look at the United Nation's Statement of Human rights, we are lacking even more, some of which I don't personally agree with, but for the time being...add those to the list.

I would also add that shouldn't the right to self-determination, provided it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, exist too? The founding fathers might have called it the "Pursuit of Happiness". I would say that self-determination is impossible with a government that is routinely subverted by private and commercial interests and morality being legislated in Congress and backed up by the Supreme Court. Smoking bans are legislated morality. If you fudge the numbers a LOT, second hand smoke shows a weak correlation to cancer. No causation, no proof thats its deadly, like cigarettes have been proven to be, and we pass bodies of laws restricting people's actions? If the smoking bans aren't based on science, then what could they be "It smells bad", so we don't want it around us when we eat. So, next we should pass laws requiring people to shower or wear deodorant because they personally smell bad? Its not even legislating morality...I don't know what to call it. Its not freedom of self-determination, though. There was a standard in days gone by. If you don't like what somebody says or does, you have the right to go somewhere else. I would hope that people would have the consideration to wear deodorant and not smoke in a restaurant, but what ever happened to tolerance?

[judgeposer]

Well, yes, but ultimately, we have to accept certain sacrifices of freedom to live in a civilized country.

What are freedoms? I'd define them roughly as rights in reserve. What are our rights? Depends on who you talk to...

If we define rights as what the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution defines them as, I would say not. Freedom of speech is curtailed, freedom to keep and bear arms is curtailed, Habeas Corpus can still be suspended, people are required in this country to give up their rights under the fourth amendment to unreasonable search and seizure for any asundry laundry list of reasons. The fifth amendment is bent so that Grand Juries can compel you to testify or throw you in prison, the same way they did in Europe 1000 years ago, the very thing the founding fathers wanted stopped by adding the clause into the fifth amendment. In Texas there have been counties stopping people and threatening to charge them with felonies unless they gave over all of their money under the forfeiture for drug offenses laws, even though they committed no crime. Its been heard of in California, too. The tenth amendment is mashed up for a number of reasons, too. If we can say that the most basic declaration of rights in the United States isn't adhered to, and those rights aren't respected and are abrogated by laws veiled in the public's best interest...how could anybody make the reasonable argument we are free? That is, if our rights, or the rights of our fellow Americans, are routinely curtailed, what definition of freedom could explain no guarantee of rights? If one person can drive through Shelby County Texas, get jacked by the cops of all their money, having had no trial, having committed no crime, then we are all the poorer for it in terms of ourrights so how can we be free?

I would also go further and say if you look at the United Nation's Statement of Human rights, we are lacking even more, some of which I don't personally agree with, but for the time being...add those to the list.

I would also add that shouldn't the right to self-determination, provided it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, exist too? The founding fathers might have called it the "Pursuit of Happiness". I would say that self-determination is impossible with a government that is routinely subverted by private and commercial interests and morality being legislated in Congress and backed up by the Supreme Court. Smoking bans are legislated morality. If you fudge the numbers a LOT, second hand smoke shows a weak correlation to cancer. No causation, no proof thats its deadly, like cigarettes have been proven to be, and we pass bodies of laws restricting people's actions? If the smoking bans aren't based on science, then what could they be "It smells bad", so we don't want it around us when we eat. So, next we should pass laws requiring people to shower or wear deodorant because they personally smell bad? Its not even legislating morality...I don't know what to call it. Its not freedom of self-determination, though. There was a standard in days gone by. If you don't like what somebody says or does, you have the right to go somewhere else. I would hope that people would have the consideration to wear deodorant and not smoke in a restaurant, but what ever happened to tolerance?

I can say with some expertise on the topic of legal freedoms and rights (just kidding Eric!)…

But really…

One of the most puzzling, and hard-to-swallow concepts about the law for students of the law to grasp—aside from specific methods such as those advocated by proponents of the law and economics movement or some similar thing—is that our rights are what the Supreme Court says they are. From its earliest cases having the issue of judicial review, such as the famous Marbury v. Madison, the Court established this, and remain under this regime today. The more cynical among us might say that given this brute reality, we have no rights, per se. Even if we believe in fantastical notions like human rights, or natural rights, or even natural law, in a nation governed by the rule of law, that empowers its judiciary as the last say on legal matters, our rights as we can live and experience them come from some court sanction, be it a curtailment or protection.


I would say, even considering myself a quite cynical student of the law, that despite this brute reality, we still do enjoy tremendous freedom.

Eric, I too have a tremendous dismay when I read how the courts, especially the Supreme Court, has decided on our First (speech and religion), Second (right to bear arms), Fourth (right against unreasonable searches and seizures), Fifth (due process), Sixth (right to counsel, etc.) Amendment rights (to name a few).

In questioning whether we have the right to self-determination, provided it doesn't infringe on other people's rights produces, for me and many others, an irresolvable tension/question—namely can we exercise our rights—or some of our rights—in such a way does not necessarily infringe on others? I don't know that we can, in all circumstances. For their defense, the Court routinely frames its duty when deciding such things as an exercise in balancing the rights someone chooses to exercise against the possible infringement that affects the other party or parties. I don't know if I see a happy resolution between the two.

[Sonthert]

Well, yes, but ultimately, we have to accept certain sacrifices of freedom to live in a civilized country.

What are freedoms? I'd define them roughly as rights in reserve. What are our rights? Depends on who you talk to...

If we define rights as what the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution defines them as, I would say not. Freedom of speech is curtailed, freedom to keep and bear arms is curtailed, Habeas Corpus can still be suspended, people are required in this country to give up their rights under the fourth amendment to unreasonable search and seizure for any asundry laundry list of reasons. The fifth amendment is bent so that Grand Juries can compel you to testify or throw you in prison, the same way they did in Europe 1000 years ago, the very thing the founding fathers wanted stopped by adding the clause into the fifth amendment. In Texas there have been counties stopping people and threatening to charge them with felonies unless they gave over all of their money under the forfeiture for drug offenses laws, even though they committed no crime. Its been heard of in California, too. The tenth amendment is mashed up for a number of reasons, too. If we can say that the most basic declaration of rights in the United States isn't adhered to, and those rights aren't respected and are abrogated by laws veiled in the public's best interest...how could anybody make the reasonable argument we are free? That is, if our rights, or the rights of our fellow Americans, are routinely curtailed, what definition of freedom could explain no guarantee of rights? If one person can drive through Shelby County Texas, get jacked by the cops of all their money, having had no trial, having committed no crime, then we are all the poorer for it in terms of ourrights so how can we be free?

I would also go further and say if you look at the United Nation's Statement of Human rights, we are lacking even more, some of which I don't personally agree with, but for the time being...add those to the list.

I would also add that shouldn't the right to self-determination, provided it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, exist too? The founding fathers might have called it the "Pursuit of Happiness". I would say that self-determination is impossible with a government that is routinely subverted by private and commercial interests and morality being legislated in Congress and backed up by the Supreme Court. Smoking bans are legislated morality. If you fudge the numbers a LOT, second hand smoke shows a weak correlation to cancer. No causation, no proof thats its deadly, like cigarettes have been proven to be, and we pass bodies of laws restricting people's actions? If the smoking bans aren't based on science, then what could they be "It smells bad", so we don't want it around us when we eat. So, next we should pass laws requiring people to shower or wear deodorant because they personally smell bad? Its not even legislating morality...I don't know what to call it. Its not freedom of self-determination, though. There was a standard in days gone by. If you don't like what somebody says or does, you have the right to go somewhere else. I would hope that people would have the consideration to wear deodorant and not smoke in a restaurant, but what ever happened to tolerance?

I can say with some expertise on the topic of legal freedoms and rights (just kidding Eric!)…

But really…

One of the most puzzling, and hard-to-swallow concepts about the law for students of the law to grasp—aside from specific methods such as those advocated by proponents of the law and economics movement or some similar thing—is that our rights are what the Supreme Court says they are. From its earliest cases having the issue of judicial review, such as the famous Marbury v. Madison, the Court established this, and remain under this regime today. The more cynical among us might say that given this brute reality, we have no rights, per se. Even if we believe in fantastical notions like human rights, or natural rights, or even natural law, in a nation governed by the rule of law, that empowers its judiciary as the last say on legal matters, our rights as we can live and experience them come from some court sanction, be it a curtailment or protection.


I would say, even considering myself a quite cynical student of the law, that despite this brute reality, we still do enjoy tremendous freedom.

Eric, I too have a tremendous dismay when I read how the courts, especially the Supreme Court, has decided on our First (speech and religion), Second (right to bear arms), Fourth (right against unreasonable searches and seizures), Fifth (due process), Sixth (right to counsel, etc.) Amendment rights (to name a few).

In questioning whether we have the right to self-determination, provided it doesn't infringe on other people's rights produces, for me and many others, an irresolvable tension/question—namely can we exercise our rights—or some of our rights—in such a way does not necessarily infringe on others? I don't know that we can, in all circumstances. For their defense, the Court routinely frames its duty when deciding such things as an exercise in balancing the rights someone chooses to exercise against the possible infringement that affects the other party or parties. I don't know if I see a happy resolution between the two.

Of course, the Supreme Court says they have the final decision of what are our rights. The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. I hereby declare that Tangiers Tobacco is the only source of shisha in the United States. Its obviously in my best selfish interests for this to be true. If you believe me and the government backs me up and the military too...well, you will look to me to be the wellspring from which shisha comes from. It wouldn't be unusual for a group or body to grab more power and declare themselves to be the only source for a product. Obviously I'm talking about the Supreme Court and I wouldn't do something like that regarding shisha.

The Supreme Court taking that opinion is in contradiction with the founding father's opinions (If the opinions of the founding father's are reflected in the Declaration of Independence). Obviously, there is a threat here to liberty, if the Supreme Court gets to decide what are, and when we have, our rights, we have the makings of a monarchy. (Go back and read Kafka) A legalistic, but arbitrary body elected to life-terms...or if they decide they have the right to appoint new justices when they see fit or name whom will succeed each one of them.

I believe you, with your last point, are assuming that a certain right exists that doesn't (In my opinion). The existence of that right makes all rights become an imposition on people all the time. Of course, a dictator who wanted to take over a democracy would get people to buy the argument that a certain right invalidates all others (or makes them an imposition, so we don't have any rights...Orwellian). I think the solution is tolerance or retreat for all "conflicts" of people's rights. People don't have the right to be free of other people's rights...although I don't know how your unspoken "right" is framed. Each person is entitled to exercise their rights, or they are worthless, when you start adding other people have to approve of or aren't inconvenienced by the exercise of our rights...woe to our rights!

Jason "describe" what you mean as one person exercising their rights infringing on others...describe this problem or tension. How can me exercising my rights infringe on someone else's rights? I think you are invoking an assumed right.

I will maintain that our rights are inalienable, they must be established by and the exercise of using objective descriptions, not allowing subjective judgments. If we allow subjectivity to be a hinge on which our rights swing on, then we have no rights...then how can we be free?

[Rani]

According to Webster's Online:

Free

Pronunciation: \ˈfrē\ Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): fre·er; fre·est Etymology: Middle English, from Old English frēo; akin to Old High German frī free, Welsh rhydd, Sanskrit priya own, dear Date: before 12th century 1 a: having the legal and political rights of a citizen b: enjoying civil and political liberty <free citizens> c: enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d: enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another 2 a: not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself b: determined by the choice of the actor or performer <free actions> c: made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously3 a: relieved from or lacking something and especially something unpleasant or burdensome <free from pain> <a speech free of political rhetoric> —often used in combination <error-free> b: not bound, confined, or detained by force 4 a: having no trade restrictions b: not subject to government regulation cof foreign exchange : not subject to restriction or official control 5 a: having no obligations (as to work) or commitments <I'll be free this evening> b: not taken up with commitments or obligations <a free evening>6: having a scope not restricted by qualification <a free variable>7 a: not obstructed, restricted, or impeded <free to leave> b: not being used or occupied <waved with his free hand> c: not hampered or restricted in its normal operation 8 a: not fastened <the free end of the rope> b: not confined to a particular position or place <in twelve-tone music, no note is wholly free for it must hold its place in the series — J. L. Stewart> c: capable of moving or turning in any direction <a free particle> d: performed without apparatus <free tumbling> e: done with artificial aids (as pitons) used only for protection against falling and not for support <a free climb>9 a: not parsimonious <free spending> b: outspoken c: availing oneself of something without stint d: frank , open e: overly familiar or forward in action or attitude f: licentious10: not costing or charging anything 11 a (1): not united with, attached to, combined with, or mixed with something else : separate <free ores> <a free surface of a bodily part> (2): freestanding <a free column> b: chemically uncombined <free oxygen> <free acids> c: not permanently attached but able to move about <a free electron in a metal> d: capable of being used alone as a meaningful linguistic form <the word hats is a free form> — compare {h,5}bound 712 a: not literal or exact <free translation> b: not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <free skating>13: favorable —used of a wind blowing from a direction more than six points from dead ahead14: not allowing slavery15: open to all comers— free·ness \-nəs\ noun — for free : without chargesynonyms free , independent , sovereign , autonomous mean not subject to the rule or control of another. free stresses the complete absence of external rule and the full right to make all of one's own decisions <you're free to do as you like>. independent implies a standing alone; applied to a state it implies lack of connection with any other having power to interfere with its citizens, laws, or policies <the colony's struggle to become independent>. sovereign stresses the absence of a superior power and implies supremacy within a thing's own domain or sphere <separate and sovereign armed services>. autonomous stresses independence in matters pertaining to self-government <in this denomination each congregation is regarded as autonomous>.

In accordance with this definiation we're nowhere close to being free. However, we have knowingly relinquished many freedoms in the interest of the security and safety of a civilized society. I once got into an intense discussion with a coworker who was one of those rabid vegan PETA advocates who wanted to close down all the zoos. He argued that the wildlife were missing their freedom. My point was that given the options: Life in the wild with hunting or hunted, no medical/dental (vet care), no stable defensible home, etc., that if they had the ability to understand the options, any sane zebra or lion or ostrich would not fail to choose the zoo. We know and understand the options, and we've intentionally chosen the zoo.

'Rani

[judgeposer]

[...]
I will maintain that our rights are inalienable, they must be established by and the exercise of using objective descriptions, not allowing subjective judgments. If we allow subjectivity to be a hinge on which our rights swing on, then we have no rights...then how can we be free?

I see this thread has progressed down two different, but not unconnected paths: the philosophical and legal treatment of rights.

I, for one, first commented on the philosophical, then I shifted to the legal. My last post tried to explain more about how I see our freedom within a legal context. For my part, I attempted to show how our notion of rights "meets the ground," living in our American republic, with a Supreme Court that has claimed, and with much vindication, province to decide such matters.

Of course I see, as you do, the apparent contradiction produced when we reference our legal, Constitutional history, as decided by our Supreme Court, and our Founder's prior exploration of rights in the Declaration of Independence.

In some philosophical sense, I too share the perspective that we have inalienable rights. Those rights require no justification or vindication. We possess them simply because we are rational and human, namely because we possess something philosophers (and even lawyers) call "personhood." As a lawyer and citizen, however, I must respect that when those rights, again, "meet the ground," how they're defined and protected, rests within the ambit of the Supreme Court. So, inasmuch as I can say my personhood bestows upon me some right to be free (as in the right to self-determination), our Constitution, as interpreted by our Supreme Court, which receives its power from the Constitution itself, and our Congress in part, places restrictions on the extent to which I can both express that freedom or expect the government to protect it.

That is just one tension, perhaps irresolvable tension, I see at the intersection of our rights and our Republic.

An interesting bit of legal trivia, which we've discussed before (Eric, you and me), is that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing or significance. I mean by that lawyers cannot cite to it for support, nor does the Supreme Court find it in any way significant to explain or decide our rights, such as those in the Bill of Rights. Any citation to it is for persuasiveness alone, but not for any precedential value. More simply, no court is required by the principles of stare decisis apply it; it doesn't have any binding effect.

Does this regime contradict our Founder's intention or opinions? Perhaps. Does this endanger our inalienable rights? Perhaps.

Eric, for your question: Jason "describe" what you mean as one person exercising their rights infringing on others...describe this problem or tension. How can me exercising my rights infringe on someone else's rights?

One example that comes to mind is the law governing obscenity. First, the law does not protect "obscenity." To define obscenity, the Supreme Court employs a test, last spelled out in Miller v. California, which has three parts, which if satisfied, constitute obscenity:

1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;


2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law;

3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

[clipped from Wiki.]


Even before we embark on applying this standard to some hypothetical situation, we cannot overlook that the Court has already refused protection to work that meets these three criteria. So even prior to evaluating a work, the Court acknowledges that our freedom of speech does not have absolute protection—something we should all know by now. My freedom of expression/speech, perhaps through literature or art, must meet a certain standard in order to receive legal protection. More simply, whatever I birth as an artist has to conform to my community's standard of acceptable art. We can see already a possible tension between members of a community who don't have a taste for what I might write or depict, and me, the artist who seeks simply to express myself. Truth be told, I don't even believe we have to continue with a hypothetical to make my point clear: our rights, as lived, are not absolute, but remain in constant tension with others' right not to be offended. I mean most simply, something like the saying 'your rights stop at my nose.' I am, by the way, not advocating this perspective, but am simply relaying the law on this point.


That was the point I attempted to make in my last post. Am I still missing your point or not answering your question?

Lastly, I do agree with you when you ask (and answer): If we allow subjectivity to be a hinge on which our rights swing on, then we have no rights...then how can we be free?

[Sonthert]

Its a perfect example.

I'm sure we're in agreement, but I labor for the benefit of others who might be reading this.

It sounds like an absolute test, it has the ring of objectivity, but it is not. As a student of political studies might attest Police States or the repressive government rarely show up with steel-toed boots and guns. They take away rights with heavy processing and lengthy justifications, but they move into other arenas using less and less justification until they simply apply autocratic processes uniformly. The enter into a slippery slope of reasoning. Where if we accept the justification for one set of circumstances that practically require people relinquishing or allowing the usurpation of rights, the definitions expand, the exceptions and interpretations make the rights smaller and smaller until the right disappears for all but a few. The first criterion talks about the average person, the second criterion talks about "patently offensive way". The third criterion mentions whether the work lacks any value in terms of a,b, c or e. Rights can't revolve on an axis on majority opinion, they must be absolute. Who determines patently offensive? Or whether the work lacks any value of four areas. Who determines that value? What if the work has some other sort of value? Why should people care if offensive material exists?

[judgeposer]

Its a perfect example.

I'm sure we're in agreement, but I labor for the benefit of others who might be reading this.

It sounds like an absolute test, it has the ring of objectivity, but it is not. As a student of political studies might attest Police States or the repressive government rarely show up with steel-toed boots and guns. They take away rights with heavy processing and lengthy justifications, but they move into other arenas using less and less justification until they simply apply autocratic processes uniformly. The enter into a slippery slope of reasoning. Where if we accept the justification for one set of circumstances that practically require people relinquishing or allowing the usurpation of rights, the definitions expand, the exceptions and interpretations make the rights smaller and smaller until the right disappears for all but a few. The first criterion talks about the average person, the second criterion talks about "patently offensive way". The third criterion mentions whether the work lacks any value in terms of a,b, c or e. Rights can't revolve on an axis on majority opinion, they must be absolute. Who determines patently offensive? Or whether the work lacks any value of four areas. Who determines that value? What if the work has some other sort of value? Why should people care if offensive material exists?

The test is a hybrid of sorts, indeed. You can read more about it in the paper I have attached. It totals about twenty or so pages, but it's a worthy read. I know the author personally.

[attachment=3247:First_Am...bscenity.pdf]

[Sonthert]

Does it have surveillance software cookies on it?

I thought of this analogy, bear with me, regarding rights.

Lets say you have a girlfriend/boyfriend and the relationship is going nicely, everything is just right. Then, after your significant other goes down on you one night, they say "Give me $1.". So you are faced with a decision. If you let them have $1, they might ask for $5 next time and $20 the time after that. They might deny sex to you if you don't pony up the money, conceivably the amount could get so high, you won't have sex with them as much or ever again, practically. So, when, they ask you for that $1...what do you do? This is the same logic we should apply to our rights in society and in relation to the government. If you let them in through the crack with a small imposition, how much bigger will that crack get? Will they start asking for money for cooking dinner or doing the laundry, too? So, when somebody says its a small infringement, I say there is no small infringement on our rights. Whatever motivation made that person/the government ask for that concession will inevitably lead to larger concessions. Or the possibility that it will lead to more and larger concessions is the reason we shouldn't give in to small concessions.

[judgeposer]

Does it have surveillance software cookies on it?

I thought of this analogy, bear with me, regarding rights.

Lets say you have a girlfriend/boyfriend and the relationship is going nicely, everything is just right. Then, after your significant other goes down on you one night, they say "Give me $1.". So you are faced with a decision. If you let them have $1, they might ask for $5 next time and $20 the time after that. They might deny sex to you if you don't pony up the money, conceivably the amount could get so high, you won't have sex with them as much or ever again, practically. So, when, they ask you for that $1...what do you do? This is the same logic we should apply to our rights in society and in relation to the government. If you let them in through the crack with a small imposition, how much bigger will that crack get? Will they start asking for money for cooking dinner or doing the laundry, too? So, when somebody says its a small infringement, I say there is no small infringement on our rights. Whatever motivation made that person/the government ask for that concession will inevitably lead to larger concessions. Or the possibility that it will lead to more and larger concessions is the reason we shouldn't give in to small concessions.

No, no cookies... heh... I did though take the position in that paper that the Supreme Court produced an unworkable standard in assessing allegedly obscene material because one of the three measurements used to define obscenity, namely the consideration that gives a jury province whether material is obscene, and thus refusing it First Amendment protection, can, and is often disregarded by appellate courts. In other words, the Supreme Court standard, which sought to allow for local communities to define for themselves what they considered obscene can, in the end, be overruled by appellate courts on appeal. Now, you don't have to download and read my paper!

Your latest argument/analogy has a certain appeal, definitely. It runs the risk, however, of committing the slippery slope fallacy. Just about the fallacy, and not necessarily about your analogy, I find it funny that most people employ slippery slope reasoning intentionally, as if it is an altogether acceptable way of arguing towards of point. We've all read, often on this forum too, something to the effect of 'what's next? probably something more severe?'

Philosophers call this fallacy an informal one since the defect of reasoning has to do with a conclusion not warranted by the premises, as opposed to a formal one, where the argument's structure itself has a defect. In our case, the argument goes that if A' happens, then a series of other similar intrusions, B', C', and D' will happen too. D' should not happen, therefore A' should not happen (either). This line of reasoning is not necessarily always fallacious. The supposed fallaciousness depends on the a couple of things, such as the number of steps between the original premise, A', and the end result, D', and the causal strength of the connection between steps.

In other words, if an argument posed an extreme conclusion that were too many reasoned steps away from its initial premise, thus creating a host of intermediate steps, and reducing the causal strength between steps, we could consider it guilty of the slippery slope fallacy. So, to say that the government placing some curtailment of our right to free speech by not protecting obscene speech will inevitably lead to the total suspension of our First Amendment rights, seems too unreasonable a conclusion, making the argument fallacious for its slippery slope reasoning. The "space" between the government's non-protection of obscenity and the suspension of our First Amendment rights seems too vast, second, the two don't really have a strong enough causal connection. The government's non-protection of obscenity does not necessarily lead to the suspension of our rights of expression in any total sense. It has though placed one sort of expression outside the bounds of legal protection. Some would say a reasonable concession. Similarly, to argue that the infringement of one right neuters all of our other rights might too, in the same way, commit the fallacy.

We should be on guard for this. I happen to agree with your argument. I am now only pointing out such a line of reasoning can become fallacious.

[Sonthert]

Oh, I agree, the only problem is that the Police State operates on a slippery slope. Usurpation of rights occurs on a slippery slope. Its not logical, but it is history. When we undertake an action or allow it to be undertaken, is it not prudent to question what sort of ramifications might occur? You, yourself told me that the Supreme Court will use a series of laws supported by a premise of a law in society, although the original premise is not actually passed into law. The supreme court will then use the body of subsequent laws to justify the existence of the initial premise as a law, establishing the law after the fact. Like Income tax...Isn't that a slippery slope? People who seek to steal or strip things from other people don't do it in one fell swoop, they strip layer after layer, going deeper until nothing is left.

Another logical fallacy is "Appeal to Ignorance" which every court in the land theoretically commits every day. The presumption of innocence. In the legal arena, it is a prudent and necessary fallacy. I would argue that appeal to ignorance may be illogical as an argument, but its sensible in deciding truth values of statements. If you can't reasonably prove a statement to be true...would you convict a man of a crime?

[judgeposer]

Oh, I agree, the only problem is that the Police State operates on a slippery slope. Usurpation of rights occurs on a slippery slope. Its not logical, but it is history. When we undertake an action or allow it to be undertaken, is it not prudent to question what sort of ramifications might occur? You, yourself told me that the Supreme Court will use a series of laws supported by a premise of a law in society, although the original premise is not actually passed into law. The supreme court will then use the body of subsequent laws to justify the existence of the initial premise as a law, establishing the law after the fact. Like Income tax...Isn't that a slippery slope? People who seek to steal or strip things from other people don't do it in one fell swoop, they strip layer after layer, going deeper until nothing is left.

Another logical fallacy is "Appeal to Ignorance" which every court in the land theoretically commits every day. The presumption of innocence. In the legal arena, it is a prudent and necessary fallacy. I would argue that appeal to ignorance may be illogical as an argument, but its sensible in deciding truth values of statements. If you can't reasonably prove a statement to be true...would you convict a man of a crime?

No, no, I do agree with you so far. I was just pointing out to others how such an argument can run off the rails, so to speak. I do agree that in the area of rights legislation, we have to have the vigilance and carefully observe as you say.

About the Supreme Court bit...I do recall touching on that. If I recall the specific point properly, I said that the Court, not unlike any lawyer or other court employing analogical reasoning, can extend an analogy past its limits. In other words, through a series of related cases, the court employs an analogy such as it upholds a certain limitation of our rights, but those limitations increase based, in significant part, on the court's prior upholding of some limitations. Fast-forward a line of twenty-or-so cases, and now, we face some severe limitation the Court says it is reasonable to uphold, based on a lineage of increasing limitations, but originating from one minor limitation, which was for that case reasonable and bearable. The obviousness of why this should trouble us, seems to me, apparent. Some jurists, like Justice Scalia, have often criticized this process, and attribute it to lawyers having learned nearly exclusively to analogize as part of their study and practice. While this sort of reasoning can (and does) work fine in the area of common law, or what we call case law, it does not work so well in the area of statutory interpretation because it produces all sorts of unintended consequences like I illustrated. Of all the things we can say of our Constitution, we have to first admit that it is a statutory document. Hence the problem.

Nice get with the appeal to ignorance - something I hadn't thought of. We rationalize it in several ways, but perhaps foremost because we believe that it is better to let some guilty go that convict an innocent.

[Sonthert]

Nice get with the appeal to ignorance - something I hadn't thought of. We rationalize it in several ways, but perhaps foremost because we believe that it is better to let some guilty go that convict an innocent.

Yet we use DNA evidence although its been shown by some studies to be wrong any where from .5-7% of the time (from newspaper articles sic.). We disallow mitochondrial DNA testing because there is a 1:100,000 chance that a mitochondrion could come from the father, not the mother, but we still allow cellular DNA testing. Innoocent people in prison. When one innocent person goes to jail, none of us are free. At least thats the precept of American Law since the founders.

(Getting back to the thread).

[Charley]

No and if you think we are just try to piss on the cheese.

[ilikemyusername]

of course not.

[jayeee07]

lol at getting mad at the restrictions on tobacco when there are worse and more pointless restrictions on "NHT" as we have to say here for some gay reason

[Sonthert]

Its to prevent search engines from hittin drug-related searches.

[mustang_steve]

The easiest way to measure freedom is by how thin the books on legal code are.

That being said, it's physically impossible for any person to undestand just federal code in their entire lifetime. That says a lot right there.

Then add in state, county and local laws. It's impossible to know all of this.

The other amusing part....most of these laws are duplicates of other laws, or variants upon then, for the sole prupose of expanding punishments (which would have been considered excessive if applied for just one charge).

This is the problem with "there ought to be a law for this"....too many times people pass laws without realizing there was one in place....how can that be? Oh yeah, because the law is too complex for any human to grasp in their lifetime.

It's a giant revolving door with an entry but no exit, and that's pretty far from free.

[jezter6]

I didn't read this thread, other than the title, but this so reminds me of some Rage Against the Machine.


What? The land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy!

[Barnaby]

No, we are not free. A prison is still a prison, no matter how nice it is. We are controlled, coerced, lied to, and stolen from everyday in this country by those in charge.

[Tom1]

It's pretty much a two sided balancing scale. On one hand you have rights and freedoms, on the other you have protection.

When The Patriot Act was instituted, we lost some of our rights and freedom, but gained protection.

However, I do believe that under the patriot act that entrapment becoming legal is total shit.