Are we 'allowed' too much freedom?

[TeePee]

My opinion is that we aren't 'allowed' anything. Freedom's, such as the right to free expression, and the right to freedom of religion (with respect to the Jedi thread) are a human right. Our national government doesn't 'allow us' these rights, and nor can they ass laws which restrict them. The USA has a very clear 'Bill of Rights', which is part of the constitution, and as such limits the power of the government to restrict them. Most people, even in England, can name half of them. Europe has the same thing, as part of the EU constitution, but it's a huge multi-page document.

[Will404]

In some respects I think that we have too much freedom, for example being able to drop out of school the day you turn 16 I consider a stupid freedom. Why after the government and the tax payer has paid for your entire education up to now, should you be allowed to drop out with no qualifications. I think that it should be made so that you dont have the freedom to drop out until you complete your exams, meaning that people who are really still children dont ruin their future prospects so much.

(tho i am not sure if that was really what you were getting at)`

[Saracen]

My opinion is that we aren't 'allowed' anything. Freedom's, such as the right to free expression, and the right to freedom of religion (with respect to the Jedi thread) are a human right. Our national government doesn't 'allow us' these rights, and nor can they ass laws which restrict them. The USA has a very clear 'Bill of Rights', which is part of the constitution, and as such limits the power of the government to restrict them. Most people, even in England, can name half of them. Europe has the same thing, as part of the EU constitution, but it's a huge multi-page document.

Well, I guess it depends how far you take it.

Any of the "freedoms" you regard as "rights" are only rights because a law passed by a government says they are, and even then, only where such laws exist. If you take it right back to essentials, there are really very few rights, human or otherwise, except "kill to survive until something faster or stronger finds you". I suppose you could add "breathe, until something or someone takes that away from you".

But take away the framework of laws we've developed for ourselves, and see how much freedom you have if someone objects to what you're doing or saying?

So, in something of a contradiction, it is actually a series of limitations imposed on us by a group that give us the very freedoms we value, by the group acting collectively to take away the ability of the biggest and strongest to impose their will by sheer force. And a further irony is that we have those "laws" imposed on us by force, with or without our consent, in order to take away (or limit) the ability of individuals to take away those rights.

Our much vaunted "freedoms" are actually a set of structured limitations, and the "freedoms" only exist where we say they do, and are prepared to act as a society to back it up if someone objects.

There are no freedoms inherent in nature, except survival of the fittest. It's just that many species have worked out that surviving as a group is more effective than surviving as an individual, and humans have a more extensive set of rituals for doing it, and have worked out how to write them down.

Freedom is an illusion ..... and a limited one.

[Lucio]

I don't think the question is whether we're allowed too many freedoms, but whether we've lost too many restrictions. Society has been evolving at a rapid pace that started towards the end of WW2 and has only accelerated with the adaptation of Internet as a major communcation standard. Suddenly we were exposed to tens of thousands of ideas on how to live our lives, instead of relying on familiy and friends we could emulate those we saw on television, read about in the papers, visited their websites and read their blogs.

All of those influences that we never had to cope with before.

I'm sure we all like to think that we're our own person, that we solely make decisions that affect who we are and what affects our lives. Tell me though, where did that idea come from? It's certainly not always been part of our culture to endlessly question our place in the world but instead a product of Far Eastern influences...

[nichomach]

Hi TeePee, I'd say I'm not going to be picky, but that'd be a fib - "Europe has the same thing, as part of the EU constitution" is incorrect; the EU doesn't have anything really to do with individual rights, their definition or protection. That's the purview of the European Convention on Human Rights and its associated European Court of Human Rights (not to be confused with the European Court of Justice - yes, I know, I know...). The EU's pretty much an economic and political union - you have to sign up to the ECHR to join the club, but they're not synonymous; the ECHR predates the EU by some years. Our own courts can now apply the convention directly as a consequence of the Human Rights Act (which saves a lot of time and expense, since fewer cases now go to Strasbourg); if you look at the ECHR, it's not a huge document - there are only 59 articles and the language is pretty direct - http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en...s/Html/005.htm.

[Sippin40oz]

I think that governments have lost all perspective on why they are put in power in the first place. Fair enough they should be stopping people murdering each other etc but they seem to get too involved with everyones lives. Like for instance this stupid law to keep records of everyone you phone, email and every website you visit which will come into play in the near future. Why the hell do they need that much private data on everyone?! but there are also stupid rules they try to enforce like the straightness of bananas that are allowed to be sold! Governments are there to protect freedom not to take it away!!

[Terbinator]

However, i don't like the way a court may ulitmately decide how a right should be applied or its interpritation - more so in america where theres a strong Conservative/Liberal divide, yet i agree that in our country at least government/state should have more control. The Texas v. Wade case for example resulted in someone being found not guilty for flag burning yet it was a criminal offense to do so in the state (Texas) - so while 'The Bill of Rights' may be set out it isn't clear.

[aidanjt]

I think that governments have lost all perspective on why they are put in power in the first place. Fair enough they should be stopping people murdering each other etc but they seem to get too involved with everyones lives. Like for instance this stupid law to keep records of everyone you phone, email and every website you visit which will come into play in the near future. Why the hell do they need that much private data on everyone?! but there are also stupid rules they try to enforce like the straightness of bananas that are allowed to be sold! Governments are there to protect freedom not to take it away!!

And then the punters have to pay through the nose because some moron who was probably not even voted into office had a 'really neat idea'.

[peterb]

We seem to make much of "rights" and neglect the fact that with rights come responsibilities - in particular responsibilities to society - which in return grants you rights enshrined by law.

Part of the problem is that the state has tended to remove people's responsibility for their own actions, and while it is easy to snip at the nanny state, it does seem to me that the state has removed a sense of collective responsibility, and an attitude of "its someone else's problem'.

But the balance between rights and responsibilities is difficult. You may have a right to free speech and freedom of expression, but someone else has the 'right' not to be offended by something you may write or say, so you need to use your 'right' responsibility.

Without that sense of personal and collective responsibility, society will either degenerate into a free-for-all where anything goes and it is survival of the fittest, or be so tightly regulated that all personal responsibility is assumed by the state, which grants limited freedom accordingly. IMHO we have tended towards the latter with this government, but equally, a swing too far the other way would be equally detrimental.

Perhaps instead of a bill of human rights, we should have a bill of human responsibilities.