Liberty and Responsibility: Philosophy Forums

Liberty and Responsibility
Liberty cannot work without responsiblity

Liberty and Responsibility

hateloveschool
In the process of dying

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2005
Location: The middle of a cornfield
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 218

Last Blog:

Posted 11/11/05 - 10:01 AM: Subject: Liberty and Responsibility	#1
Liberty: The ability to do what one wants. Responsibility: The duty called by the state for it's citizens and people. These duties include, following laws, being conscious of what one is doing and not doing an act that would be considered deviant to society. To have liberty, you must also have responsibility. You cannot have liberty without responsibility. People have the responsibility to drive safely and when they do not, they usually lose the freedom or liberty to drive. When you just have liberty, chaos will come about. A good example of this was the French Revolution. People did not have the responsiblity of acting civily and orderly. The result, a tryanny.
Please don't hurt me.

kenichi
Wise King of the Right

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 09, 2004
Location: Marlton, NJ
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1538

Posted 11/11/05 - 10:10 AM:	#2
Well put, one cannot be a libertarian and a libertine at once. For an interesting read, try Edmund Burkes critique of the French Revolution.
And we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 11/11/05 - 10:30 AM:	#3
hateloveschool wrote: Liberty: The ability to do what one wants. Responsibility: following laws, being conscious of what one is doing and not doing an act that would be considered deviant to society. Is it just me or might these things be mutually exclusive? Then this: You cannot have liberty without responsibility would be wrong. I say instead: You only have liberty when you don't have responsibility! So hah. To have liberty, you must also have responsibility. Perhaps I agree with this more. The nature of liberty is that it fosters error, chaos, anarchy. Yet at the same time it fosters innovation, authenticity, individuality, self-reliance. Two sides of the same coin, eh? Seems like the trick is not to have too much anarchy, for that would dissolve all structure; but at the same time to harshly limit structure so that liberty might work it's magic. We need to keep our stuctures oily, fecund, and full of fiery breath. Edited by Klaatu on 11/11/05 - 10:41 AM

hateloveschool
In the process of dying

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2005
Location: The middle of a cornfield
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 218

Last Blog:

Posted 11/11/05 - 02:36 PM:	#4
Klaatu wrote: would be wrong. I say instead: You only have liberty when you don't have responsibility! So hah. Well, under my definition of liberty, I assume you're using the same definition, then liberty is detrimental to the state and should be done away with.
Please don't hurt me.

Atrytone
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 153

Posted 11/11/05 - 10:04 PM:	#5
hateloveschool wrote: Liberty: The ability to do what one wants. Responsibility: The duty called by the state for it's citizens and people. These duties include, following laws, being conscious of what one is doing and not doing an act that would be considered deviant to society. Suppose I live in a tyrannical state that has a law prohibiting the sale or consumption of chocolate ice cream. Suppose also that I want to consume large quantities of chocolate ice cream. Here, as I think Klaatu was trying to point out, liberty and responsibility, under the definitions you have stipulated are contradictory, rather than necessary to one another as you claim they are. My responsibility to abide by the chocolate ice cream prohibition conflicts with my liberty to be able to consume chocolate ice cream. Perhaps you wish to revise your definitions to account for this? Your talk of revolutions and the enforcement of driving laws suggests to me that if you do something that other people don't like, and let them catch you doing it, they sometimes will fight you or put you in jail. It does not suggest (though I think it is intended to) that only by following the laws of the state can one do what one wants. In my ice-cream suppressing tyranny, in fact, the only way I can do as I want is by failing to follow the laws of the state.

hateloveschool
In the process of dying

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2005
Location: The middle of a cornfield
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 218

Last Blog:

Posted 11/12/05 - 11:59 AM:	#6
Atrytone wrote: My responsibility to abide by the chocolate ice cream prohibition conflicts with my liberty to be able to consume chocolate ice cream. Perhaps you wish to revise your definitions to account for this? Do you have the liberty to consume chocolate in that tyrannical state? Atrytone wrote: In my ice-cream suppressing tyranny, in fact, the only way I can do as I want is by failing to follow the laws of the state. But to break the law will cause problems in the state. I'm saying that if you just have liberty, the state will fall, and it is necessary to have responsibility for the state to survive.
Please don't hurt me.

You don't have permission to post.