User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Efficiency versus civil liberties

  1. #21

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,267, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 58.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200775
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,928
    Points
    473,267
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,064
    Thanked 46,045x in 24,876 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    If rights are not absolute, are we working on the premise they are really nothing more than privileges granted by government?
    No. Off hand - ever hear of crying fire in a crowded theater? That is one of the most common examples.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  2. #22

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 74,315, Level: 66
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,135
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    195695
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    32,312
    Points
    74,315
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    3,680
    Thanked 27,380x in 15,849 Posts
    Mentioned
    412 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    No. Off hand - ever hear of crying fire in a crowded theater? That is one of the most common examples.
    I have never liked that example for a couple of reasons. First, that isn't exactly what Holmes said in Schenk. No one has ever been charged with the crime of yelling FIRE is a crowded theater. I am pretty sure that particular offense doesn't appear in the statute books of any state. Creating a panic is what would be the criminal act. If no one reacted to someone shouting FIRE, there would be no crime. The second reason is simpler. If there was a fire in a crowded theater, I would hope that someone would yell FIRE to alert the other theater goers.
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater

  3. #23
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314975
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,092x in 12,286 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45 View Post
    Rights are absolute. If rights are not absolute they cannot possibly be considered a "right" but a privilege. It is this idea that rights are not absolute that is leading us down the path of totalitarianism. Where do you draw the line of how a right might be infringed? We have a right to keep and bare arms. Ah, but that doesn't mean we can own machine guns. If we can't own machine guns why can't we also not be allowed to own semi automatic pistols? The government cannot infringe on my right to freedom of religion. Well, we can shut down the church and stop you from practicing that religion. All we need to do is declare it an emergency. Rights either are or they are not.

    Rights are not granted by government, they are either protected or infringed upon. Rights come from the very fact that we are human and have fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All other rights stem from that basic right.
    While the question of whether a state or local government should, under the Constitution, be able to restrict citizens from leaving their homes or opening their businesses because of a virus outbreak - which is, of course, what has prompted this particular discussion, though the scope of it has obviously grown - is certainly worth discussing. However, there is no question but that there is both logic and legal precedence to support the quarantining of those who are known to be infected with a serious, communicable disease, or for the banning of them from performing certain jobs that could potentially affect public safety. As others have stated in so many words, a right doesn't cease to be a right because certain rational limits are placed on it.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Standing Wolf For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (04-06-2020)

  5. #24
    Points: 61,084, Level: 60
    Level completed: 37%, Points required for next Level: 1,266
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    pjohns's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    14536
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,907
    Points
    61,084
    Level
    60
    Thanks Given
    19,470
    Thanked 4,230x in 2,709 Posts
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    While the question of whether a state or local government should, under the Constitution, be able to restrict citizens from leaving their homes or opening their businesses because of a virus outbreak - which is, of course, what has prompted this particular discussion, though the scope of it has obviously grown - is certainly worth discussing. However, there is no question but that there is both logic and legal precedence to support the quarantining of those who are known to be infected with a serious, communicable disease, or for the banning of them from performing certain jobs that could potentially affect public safety. As others have stated in so many words, a right doesn't cease to be a right because certain rational limits are placed on it.
    That is a very thoughtful (as in trenchant) response.

    Even so, I would push back just a little.

    Let us suppose (as seems reasonable) that these restrictions do, indeed, save some Americans' lives.

    But that begs the question: Is human life a higher value than civil liberties?

    It is really not quite so easy of a question as it may (initially) seem.

    If, after all, human life were the ultimate value, then why would we ever engage in war--rather than just humbly laying down our arms, and accepting the consequences?

    Again: Think about it.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:

    Chris (04-06-2020),DGUtley (04-06-2020)

  7. #25

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,267, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 58.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200775
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,928
    Points
    473,267
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,064
    Thanked 46,045x in 24,876 Posts
    Mentioned
    887 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    These are good discussions. Thx.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    pjohns (04-07-2020)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts