Democracy or Anarchy (1 Viewer)

[migsy2202]

The civil liberties unions and organisations of this country are driving the morals and founding principles of our democracy into a large crevasse. I think they need to take a step back and differentiate between democracy v anarchy... Now the fact is, although a democracy is constituted by numerous freedoms, social regulation, does and must still exist.

However, every chance they get, these 'social revolutionaries' attempt to undermine the justice system and the laws that regulate the way we live. Continually, the terms of freedom and choice are coined, however they are using these terms rather irresponsibly. Now if we were to establish Australia as a society based on the principles of anarchy then it would warrant our ability to do as we please, and live in ignorance to the constraints of government and constitutional law. We do have freedom in a democracy but it is not absolute. Every decision we make may affect other people in various ways and we need to consider the ramifications of all our actions and their effect on others. That is why we have the law, and hence the police to enforce these 'social rules'.

Slowly but surely the validity of our justice system is slowly being eroded and placed into disrepute because these 'snivil libetarians', as they should more appropriately be called, attempt to value the freedom of one individual over another. We all have an obligation not to interfere on the freedoms of others, and in my opinion once this occurs, the liberty of the individuals at question must surely be surrendered. Social constaints exist for a reason, not merely to suppress the population but to facilitate society's ability to exist in relative harmony.

I believe that an inquiry needs to be conducted into the handing down of sentences in this country and thereafter mandatory sentences implemented. If we continue to let these libetarians continue to erode our justice system and society then the fact is, eventually we will fall into a society based around the ideas that freedom is absolute, and heaven help us if that was to occur....

I know there will be stark opposition to these comments and that surely places the future of our nation at question...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The civil liberties unions and organisations of this country are driving the morals and founding principles of our democracy into a large crevasse.

"The basis of a democratic state is liberty" - Aristotle.

I think they need to take a step back and differentiate between democracy v anarchy... Now the fact is, although a democracy is constituted by numerous freedoms, social regulation, does and must still exist.

However, every chance they get, these 'social revolutionaries' attempt to undermine the justice system and the laws that regulate the way we live. Continually, the terms of freedom and choice are coined, however they are using these terms rather irresponsibly. Now if we were to establish Australia as a society based on the principles of anarchy then it would warrant our ability to do as we please, and live in ignorance to the constraints of government and constitutional law. We do have freedom in a democracy but it is not absolute. Every decision we make may affect other people in various ways and we need to consider the ramifications of all our actions and their effect on others. That is why we have the law, and hence the police to enforce these 'social rules'.

Slowly but surely the validity of our justice system is slowly being eroded and placed into disrepute because these 'snivil libetarians', as they should more appropriately be called, attempt to value the freedom of one individual over another. We all have an obligation not to interfere on the freedoms of others, and in my opinion once this occurs, the liberty of the individuals at question must surely be surrendered. Social constaints exist for a reason, not merely to suppress the population but to facilitate society's ability to exist in relative harmony.

I believe that an inquiry needs to be conducted into the handing down of sentences in this country and thereafter mandatory sentences implemented. If we continue to let these libetarians continue to erode our justice system and society then the fact is, eventually we will fall into a society based around the ideas that freedom is absolute, and heaven help us if that was to occur....

I know there will be stark opposition to these comments and that surely places the future of our nation at question...

Both liberal and democratic considerations are important, not simply the common good.

Without society, in the state of nature, we are all free. It goes without saying that freedom is a good thing which wish to have as much of as possible. However, in the state of nature we cannot be sure that others will respect our freedoms. So we enter into a social contract whereby we forego some of our freedoms in order that the most important liberties are guaranteed protection. We only limit freedoms where there is necessity. You say that -

"We all have an obligation not to interfere on the freedoms of others, and in my opinion once this occurs, the liberty of the individuals at question must surely be surrendered."

Absolutely not. We have an obligation not to interfere with the freedoms of others (and thus some of our liberty is taken away), and once this occurs, all other freedoms must be preserved, not surrendered. As Mill says, "the most cogent reason for restricting the interference of govrnment is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power."

You go on about undermining the justice system but I don't know what you mean -- please provide some sort of example to illustrate your point.

 

[migsy2202]

Well for example, a case that was in the newspaper last week was concerned with the double murder of two women. However the defendent was aquitted by the judge as both the forensic evidence and testimony of two persons were deemed to be too damming... the judge believed such evidence would make the jury decision prejudicial against the defendent and that they would not consider the other evidence from both parties...or something along those lines

Nonetheless the fact is, what kind of justice system allows a double murderer to walk free because the evidence heavily implicated his part in the murder of another individual....Moreover the defense lawyer was more concerned about allowing him to be free so as he could live happily with his family... What about the families of those women who were murdered... If he has taken the lives of two others, he has effectively forfeited his right to the forms of liberties that democracy provides. These lawyers/libertarians continually aim for these results which are changing the way society approached such issues..

BTW social analysts such as mills etc are merely that, analysts... we need to use a touch of commonsense when thinking about these matters, and not merely express the ideas of 'social experts' who believe they can dissect society and make research based assumptions. Low and behold research does not always hold the answers... discretion is one of the most useful attributes that liberty does actually provide.

These two dictionary definitions of liberty are not 'totally' valid in the democracies we live in, as government still has the ability to regulate and control:

1)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2)The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

However I believe the next holds a touch more validity:

1)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

This expresses how we can make our own choices etc, however where necessary government intervention and regulation is warranted. Just or due government control in my opinion is the removal of the liberties of an individual when they deprive the right of another to these freedoms...Hence where the elements of government control are implemented. Libertarians can argue the point till the death, but the fact is liberty does not mean absolute freedom in the context in which we reside..

 

[gordo]

you have taken for granted WAY too much

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well for example, a case that was in the newspaper last week was concerned with the double murder of two women. However the defendent was aquitted by the judge as both the forensic evidence and testimony of two persons were deemed to be too damming... the judge believed such evidence would make the jury decision prejudicial against the defendent and that they would not consider the other evidence from both parties...or something along those lines

Nonetheless the fact is, what kind of justice system allows a double murderer to walk free because the evidence heavily implicated his part in the murder of another individual....Moreover the defense lawyer was more concerned about allowing him to be free so as he could live happily with his family... What about the families of those women who were murdered... If he has taken the lives of two others, he has effectively forfeited his right to the forms of liberties that democracy provides. These lawyers/libertarians continually aim for these results which are changing the way society approached such issues..

This is a common misconception typical of the layperson who is not aware of either (a) the detailed facts of the case or (b) the complexities of legal reasoning. As I've said before, you have a black-box view of the justice system. You only see the inputs and the outputs, but the process is obscured. The technicalities of our legal system are in place for good reasons. On the face of it, all you see is someone who killed two people let free. There is your first mistake. It is an alleged murder. Everyone is entitled to due process and one is innocent until proven guilty.

BTW social analysts such as mills etc are merely that, analysts... we need to use a touch of commonsense when thinking about these matters, and not merely express the ideas of 'social experts' who believe they can dissect society and make research based assumptions. Low and behold research does not always hold the answers... discretion is one of the most useful attributes that liberty does actually provide.

What actually is your argument here? Not to reiterate someone's views without thinking about them? Mill's views are very well justified, and the quote which I used merely articulated a point. You seem to imply that Mill, being a "researcher" does not use common sense. Mill is a philosopher and political economist. I don't know why you are talking about research, for that was not mentioned at all.

These two dictionary definitions of liberty are not 'totally' valid in the democracies we live in, as government still has the ability to regulate and control:

1)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2)The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

However I believe the next holds a touch more validity:

1)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

Liberalism does not promote the absolute freedom of all individuals, so it is not necessary to refine the definition of what liberty is. Those dictionary definitions are perfectly fine. Liberalism and liberty are two different things. Liberty can be used in different contexts and therefore have different meanings. Furthermore I might still have liberty as defined in definition 1, but implicitly there is a notion of degree involved. I might not have absolute liberty, but I still might be free from restriction or control to some extent.

This expresses how we can make our own choices etc, however where necessary government intervention and regulation is warranted. Just or due government control in my opinion is the removal of the liberties of an individual when they deprive the right of another to these freedoms...Hence where the elements of government control are implemented. Libertarians can argue the point till the death, but the fact is liberty does not mean absolute freedom in the context in which we reside..

Liberalism does not say that absolute freedom is warranted. That is not what it proposes at all. In a liberal democracy of course freedom is not absolute -- however the extent to which government should interfere under a Liberal view is typically aligned more with Mill's view that people ought to be free do whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm other people.

 

[HellVeN]

We all have an obligation not to interfere on the freedoms of others, and in my opinion once this occurs, the liberty of the individuals at question must surely be surrendered. Social constaints exist for a reason, not merely to suppress the population but to facilitate society's ability to exist in relative harmony.

Please explain.

Why is it that we have those obligations? Why is it that we feel the "need" to have our total freedom supressed?
I think it is because we have been brought up with these values and ideals hammered into our heads from a young age. If you do not conform to the system they lock you up. But who are they to take away your total freedom and to enforce these uncontestable rules, these "laws" onto you being.

The fact is that we occasionaly create our fate and that often it is created for us. It seems that today, if your ideals and values differ from the mainstream population, you have no place on this planet which they claim their's. I agree however with your point that we would not be much without these social regulations.