tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post202408597293635774..comments2024-03-28T00:54:34.206-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Libertarian Gets All Knotted Up Over Concept Of Freedombigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-25173673702609610332009-02-12T14:24:00.000-05:002009-02-12T14:24:00.000-05:00Watson:I agree. The more human rights a society at...Watson:<BR/><BR/>I agree. The more human rights a society attempts to support, the more they tend to conflict, and thus we are faced with having to decide which rights are more important.<BR/><BR/>A society with an ever-growing list of human rights might find - ironically - that their efforts to expand rights places the most fundamental liberties under attack. This is a problem that Ignatieff, in his book "The Rights Revolution", never properly addresses.<BR/><BR/>In my view, freedom of conscience, speech, and the press must be given predence, for these are the freedoms from which other freedoms flow. A society can not address problems if it is not free to candidly discuss them. <BR/><BR/>Thus I believe that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gets it about right. The first set of freedoms in the document are referred to as "Fundamental Freedoms". Both their title and their position in the document are a clear indication of their primacy. <BR/><BR/>Although the charter does allow for limiting these rights, we should only do so with substantial justification, and in fact that's what the courts have demanded. Regrettably there areas of Canadian society whose restrictions on speech have not been properly contested in court. <BR/><BR/>If we are to err, we should do so in favour of too much speech.rabbithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12371229772899723851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-45323411693352003772009-02-12T12:13:00.000-05:002009-02-12T12:13:00.000-05:00BCL,My talk about "weighting" different liberties ...BCL,<BR/><BR/>My talk about "weighting" different liberties is a long-standing thing, and maybe not quite as arbitrary as it first sounds.<BR/><BR/>Ironically, it was Charles Taylor, a leftie, and a Canadian philosopher (not the ex-president of Liberia) who convinced me it was necessary to look at liberty that way.<BR/><BR/>Libertarians who talk simply of a right to "liberty" don't seem to realize that, in terms of raw, uncoerced choice, a country with no traffic lights and no freedom of religion is potentially on a par with one that has liberty-infringing traffic lights but also guarantees freedom of religion.<BR/><BR/>Certain liberties matter more, in the sense that more "goes wrong" when those liberties are infringed on than others. I might be wrong about which liberties have this kind of priority, or why, but I still maintain some sort of ranking is necessary.Terrence C. Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07332306056519991646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-52464942846722664152009-02-12T10:21:00.000-05:002009-02-12T10:21:00.000-05:00Canada is dull and irritating. I'd much rather liv...Canada is dull and irritating. I'd much rather live in the US where you can sit around all day and talk about freedom; how free one is and how unfree <I>foreigners</I> are and how that just sucks, sucks, SUCKS! I'd be much happier, I'm sure.<BR/><BR/>They keep bringing up freedom of speech as the most fundamental freedom; that the ability to open one's mouth, engage one's vocal cords and let the air rush out of the lungs is the be all and end all of human liberty. The fact that the culture one is part of imposes, through ubiquitous propaganda, a <I>mythology</I> (any deviation from which is characterised as treason) that has little to do with reality and causes no amount of anguish when that reality asserts itself ('Why do they hate us when we're so good?!') is, of course, secondary.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.com