Liberty restriction

There has been no shortage of talk as of late on ATS and news outlets about liberty restriction. Liberty restriction is an important topic to every human being on Earth. Given its importance, it is essential that we examine it closely. Fundamentally, there are six liberty restricting principles. Which one/ones do you agree with if any? State the one/ones you agree with and state why, also, answer the question below the one/ones you agree with. If you don't agree with any of them, state why. I realize the Harm Principle doesn't have a question, that's because it's straightforward; but if you'd like to contrive a question for it and answer the question, go ahead. You can also debate others as to why they're wrong about the one/ones they pick.

The Harm Principle - John Stuart Mill
Society is justified in restricting your liberty to prevent you from harming others.

The Offense Principle

Society is justified in restricting your liberty to prevent you from offending others.

What kind of offenses?


Paternalism definition - Interference with another’s autonomy, usually in order to benefit and/or prevent harm
The Principle of Weak Paternalism

Society is justified in restricting your liberty to prevent you from harming yourself.


What kind of harm?



The Principle of Strong Paternalism

Society is justified in restricting your liberty to benefit you.

What kind of benefits?



Legal Moralism

Society is justified in restricting your liberty to prevent you from acting immorally.

Whose morality?

Should all immoral acts be illegal?



The Social Welfare Principle

Society is justified in restricting our liberty to benefit others.

What kind of benefits and for whom?

a reply to: Thetan

Patriot Act and Patriot Act The Sequel.

There is now only the appearance of liberty in U.S.

The UK is the same. France is just about to catch up. I expect that there will be terrorist incidents like Paris in other European nations, too, like Germany, then they will of course want their versions, too.

Have a terrorist incident, have draconian anti terror legislation. Ohhh ta very much!

a reply to: Thetan

Not to short circuit the principals, but one can take 'liberties' at any point one chooses. Short of incarceration or physical restraint, the option to exercise the above liberties remain personal choice and willingness to accept any and all consequences connected to that act.

You refer to obedience? Or agreement to them?

I don’t see how these ideas are something to “agree” or “disagree” with. They are just a differentiated set of labels useful in the categorizing of actions/laws meant to restrict liberty.

In practice society has the right to restrict liberty in any way that it wants to and the individual does not have the right to countermine the will of society.

It obviously gets more complicated when society is made up of independently thinking people making the “Will of society” more difficult to define.

a reply to: Thetan




When I hear people talking about how free they are:



I kid

a reply to: Thetan

Harm Principle

I agree. The ability to regulate those doing harm to others is logical for any society which wishes to have some semblance of order. In almost all cases doing physical harm to others is criminal. Only in extraordinary circumstances do I see it being viewed as acceptable, and this only occurs in times of self-defense.

Offense Principle

This is quite the opposite of the Harm Principle in terms of what should be considered a criminal act. To make it evident though, only in objectively offensive situations that can very easily spiral into violence should this principle be applied. Such offenses include remarks of murder, or terrorism.

Weak Paternalism Principle

Someone harming themselves should be seen as a rectifiable situation, rather than an imprisonable crime. Still, it's a restriction of liberty if the government chooses to interfere with your suicidal attempt. If, after apprehending you, they feel your mental state is causing you to lean much towards harming yourself than if you were mentally sound, they should aide in your healing process. Sadly, this situation doesn't come into play often. If someone is intent on ending their life, they'll usually be successful.

Strong Paternalism Principle

The definition of this is rather subjective, making it very difficult to tell if the associated restriction is better or worse. The government may see something as "right" the citizenry could see as "wrong", or vice versa. In most cases, I'd say this principle is inherently flawed. The government should usually not interfere with perceived m negative issues starting and affecting only you when you make it clear to them that you believe it's right(one of the exceptions being "Weak Paternalism"). Yet, if there's an issue that started with you and will likely affect others in a negative way, then the chances the government will listen to your claim of not wanting to cause any harm will likely be ignored.

Legal Moralism Principle

This is also very subjective, because what the government believes to be "wrong" could be viewed as "right" by the majority of it's citizenry or vice versa (as I stated before). In most cases, this is the same as what should be done within the "Offense Principle". Only in extreme or extraordinary cases should action by the government be taken.

Social Welfare Principle

The rights of the few should only be intruded upon if the majority sees fit. Democratic systems live by this standard, and it's almost second-nature for anyone living in such a system to put things "to a vote". The exception may be if the majority wish physical or financial harm against the few (and I mean "harm" as in the majority are doing this for the main purpose of bringing the few down a peg, and not for the betterment of society).



So those are my views on these principles. Agree or disagree, this is my perspective. Until the day we invent direct mind-control, my perspective will likely remain unchanged, but my beliefs I'm willing to concede if given enough reason to doubt.