5 ms·

I still stand by my statement, or at least the intent of my statement. To say that someone who chooses not to exercise a right, for any reason, doesn't deserve

by jaf656s 16y ago

I still stand by my statement, or at least the intent of my statement. To say that someone who chooses not to exercise a right, for any reason, doesn't deserve liberty is wrong. They are not giving up the ability to exercise that right for safety, they are choosing not to exercise it for safety. This is the distinction I wanted to make. Whether personal safety is involved is irrelevant to whether they deserve liberty for choosing not to exercise a right. Is this more clear?

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>They are not giving up the ability to exercise that right for safety, they are choosing not to exercise it for safety. To make a hypothetical analogue: You're saying that if I threaten you with death if you leave your house then if you choose not to leave the house so as to live you aren't giving up your right to leave the house only choosing not to exercise that right. In other words you're saying threatening to kill someone doesn't restrict their rights it just means that if they want to exercise them they'll die. You then appear to be using that as a basis for saying that it's OK to threaten death to someone? I think you misunderstand the notion of restricting someone rights.
- jaf656s 16y ago
  No. I was saying that if you threaten me with death if I leave my house, and I choose to stay in my house for personal safety, that this act doesn't undermine the fact that I DESERVE liberty. I think restricting others rights by any means (violent or not) is very, very wrong.
netcan 16y ago
That is clearer and (to me) less objectionable. But I still don't think you are fully understanding the reasoning behind the BF quote. My understanding of "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety" is failure to struggle, even slightly, for the sake of a principle. The right, which you (I assume) are claiming is inalienable and therefore we can't say they "deserve neither liberty nor safety," is the right to liberty. You repeat "choose" not to excercise a right as if a choice for the sake of safety is like a choice for the sake of good manners. But, it's not the same. A choice for the sake of safety is not a free choice. Hence, "give up (essential) liberty." What BF is basically saying is that liberty is a right that must be asserted, in order to be deserved
- jaf656s 16y ago
  I think I see what you are saying. It is my belief that if you feel that something is just, and in your rights to do, that you should do it. I also believe that you still deserve those rights if you choose not to. Perhaps I am more lenient than BF. If you choose to give up the right to do something for yourself and others (which is my interpretation of essential liberty) because it will make you safer in the face of a perceived threat or otherwise, then you don't value your liberty and freedoms, and don't deserve them. Do you have to exercise, or assert, a right to deserve it? I don't think that you do, but I think that you do have to protect others' right to exercise it, whether you agree with how they exercise that right or not. I would like to add I enjoy this discussion. You are making me think this through more thoroughly than I would have otherwise.
  - netcan 16y ago
    That is, I think, the widely held view. I somehow think that BF would not have advocated actual stripping of their rights. More of a social statement, such an act diminishes his respect for them. I think that the motive behind it is probably the fact that practically, these rights must be asserted by enough people in order to exist in a society. Shirking this responsibility is contributing to the demise of these rights. The only thing I still disagree with you on is your use of the word 'choice.' You wouldn't say that you 'choose' to drive on the right side of the road, pay taxes or get a stamp on your passport when you visit countries, would you? I think you need to make a distinction between a choice that if free and a "choice" that isn't. Even if you don't use different words this is important because otherwise you can't really have any usable explanation of what is infringing on one's freedom.

by jaf656s 16y ago

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>They are not giving up the ability to exercise that right for safety, they are choosing not to exercise it for safety. To make a hypothetical analogue: You're saying that if I threaten you with death if you leave your house then if you choose not to leave the house so as to live you aren't giving up your right to leave the house only choosing not to exercise that right. In other words you're saying threatening to kill someone doesn't restrict their rights it just means that if they want to exercise them they'll die. You then appear to be using that as a basis for saying that it's OK to threaten death to someone? I think you misunderstand the notion of restricting someone rights.

jaf656s 16y ago
No. I was saying that if you threaten me with death if I leave my house, and I choose to stay in my house for personal safety, that this act doesn't undermine the fact that I DESERVE liberty. I think restricting others rights by any means (violent or not) is very, very wrong.

netcan 16y ago

That is clearer and (to me) less objectionable. But I still don't think you are fully understanding the reasoning behind the BF quote. My understanding of "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety" is failure to struggle, even slightly, for the sake of a principle. The right, which you (I assume) are claiming is inalienable and therefore we can't say they "deserve neither liberty nor safety," is the right to liberty. You repeat "choose" not to excercise a right as if a choice for the sake of safety is like a choice for the sake of good manners. But, it's not the same. A choice for the sake of safety is not a free choice. Hence, "give up (essential) liberty." What BF is basically saying is that liberty is a right that must be asserted, in order to be deserved

jaf656s 16y ago
I think I see what you are saying. It is my belief that if you feel that something is just, and in your rights to do, that you should do it. I also believe that you still deserve those rights if you choose not to. Perhaps I am more lenient than BF. If you choose to give up the right to do something for yourself and others (which is my interpretation of essential liberty) because it will make you safer in the face of a perceived threat or otherwise, then you don't value your liberty and freedoms, and don't deserve them. Do you have to exercise, or assert, a right to deserve it? I don't think that you do, but I think that you do have to protect others' right to exercise it, whether you agree with how they exercise that right or not. I would like to add I enjoy this discussion. You are making me think this through more thoroughly than I would have otherwise.
- netcan 16y ago
  That is, I think, the widely held view. I somehow think that BF would not have advocated actual stripping of their rights. More of a social statement, such an act diminishes his respect for them. I think that the motive behind it is probably the fact that practically, these rights must be asserted by enough people in order to exist in a society. Shirking this responsibility is contributing to the demise of these rights. The only thing I still disagree with you on is your use of the word 'choice.' You wouldn't say that you 'choose' to drive on the right side of the road, pay taxes or get a stamp on your passport when you visit countries, would you? I think you need to make a distinction between a choice that if free and a "choice" that isn't. Even if you don't use different words this is important because otherwise you can't really have any usable explanation of what is infringing on one's freedom.