Liberty and Freedom (a Foundation)
The second of the unalienable rights that was claimed in the United States Declaration of Independence was Liberty. This means that we wanted to be free within our society from any oppressive restrictions on our way of life, behavior, or political views imposed by an authority, like the English Crown.
In some ways, this right may sound like our right to life, and is also covered by my third rule, which is "Allow all living things to live their lives their way". However, there are some differences. For our right to life, the focus seems to be more on our freedoms to do what we want with and in our private lives, but our right to liberty seems to focus more on our freedoms in society and our freedoms from government overreach.
As with our right to life, we also need my first and second rules, which are "Do no undue harm" and "Protect everything from undue harm ". Without these rules, it would be hard for us to protect our liberty.
Theoretically, anyone could say or do whatever they wanted, as long as no one was able to stop them. If everyone simply said and did whatever they wanted, then we would have anarchy. However, anarchy would not guarantee that we would have liberty or freedom, since we would constantly need to fight to try to keep or even to get them.
Even living in a democracy does not guarantee that we will have liberty or freedom. In a pure democracy, every eligible voter would have a say, but the majority could still dictate how the minority lives and what liberties and freedoms they could have. Therefore, we need to have more than just a democracy.
Our Constitution does promise us some liberties and freedoms through the rights it grants us. However, our Constitution does not go far enough in clarifying the extent and the limits of our rights, which leaves it up to our courts to interpret things. Unfortunately, our courts have often included justices with their own agendas, who have given more liberty, freedom and rights to some individuals and groups while taking them away from others. I will talk more about our Constitution in later sections.
What we need is a Constitutional amendment that clearly lays out our liberties, freedoms and rights, and the obligations that would go along with them. This amendment would need to be worded well enough to make things so perfectly clear that the courts would have little room to interpret it differently than what it was intended to mean.
I believe that if we correctly worded and enshrined my three basic rules, "do no undue harm", "protect everything from undue harm" and "allow all living things to live their lives their way", into our Constitution, then that would go a long way towards ensuring our liberty and freedom. Of course, we will also need to put the appropriate laws in place so that any undue harm brings with it the appropriate penalties, which could include lawsuits, fines and prosecutions.
However, even with the most well written wording, individuals and groups may still disagree on what is and is not undue harm, and in turn what actual limits should be placed on our liberties and freedoms. I have already talked a little about what is and is not undue harm, but we should take a closer look to see where those limits should be for our liberties and freedoms.
The one freedom that is absolute is the Freedom of Thought. Barring someone being able to read someone's mind, no one should even be able to tell what someone is thinking. This means that unless a thought is turned into speech or action, it cannot cause any undue harm. Therefore, individuals should always be able to think whatever they want.
Unlike with our thoughts, we can do undue harm with our actions. Anyone should be able to give a multitude of examples where actions cause undue physical or psychological harm. Therefore, we do need to place some limits on our Freedom of Action. I discussed some of this in the "Undue Harm" subsection of the Prolog, and I will talk more about this in later sections. Here, I will just recap some of what I have already stated and add a little bit more.
First off, someone does not need to do actual physical harm for it to be undue harm. Physiological harm can sometimes be as bad or even worse than physical harm, even if it cannot be easily seen. Therefore, we need to prevent and penalize things like stalking, brandishing weapons, and invading people’s private places, just as we need to prevent and penalize things like assault, destruction of property, and theft.
Then, there are some cases where we may need to do things that would normally be considered undue harm, but under the right conditions would not be. For instance, these cases would include self-defense, defending others, or when there is an appropriate mutual agreement, like in some sports, However, even in these cases, any response needs to be measured and appropriate to the situation.
In addition, our inaction can sometimes cause undue harm, or allow undue harm to occur. If we expect to be protected from undue harm, then we must help to prevent others from causing undue harm or others from being harmed unduly. Of course, we do not need to act alone. Especially if there would be an excess risk of our own harm. However, we should do what we can. For instance, we might be able to get help from others around us or to call the police, fire department or whoever else who could help.
Among other things, the first amendment to our Constitution grants us the right to freedom of speech and the press. Some people believe this gives them the right to say whatever they want to say, even if it is false, hateful, threatening, or is otherwise harmful. Some of these people may simply be idealists, others may be criminals, politicians or others who want to be able to manipulate us, and others may simply have not thought through the possible harmful consequences of letting individuals and groups say whatever they want.
I will talk more about the first amendment in the upcoming section on the Constitution. However, here I want to talk specifically about what freedom of speech we should have, and not on what individuals and groups think and say we have based on their interpretation of the first amendment. That is, we should have the right to free speech, but only up to the point where it would cause undue harm.
Some of the things that individuals and groups say have the potential to cause us undue harm. What they say could damage our reputations, make us worry when we, our family, our friends, or others are threatened, or could manipulate us into doing bad things or others into harming us. Therefore, we must put some appropriate limits on our speech to protect ourselves from being unduly harmed, and in turn to penalize anyone who has done some undue harm by what they have said.
To understand better what speech would or could cause undue harm, we must first understand the fundamentals of speech. For instance, the content and type of speech that someone uses can help us to determine whether it would or could cause undue harm.
The content of our speech can contain some combination of fact, fiction and opinion. A fact is a true statement that can be verified or objectively proven. A fiction is a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so. An opinion tells how someone feels and is often based on an element of belief.
We also need to distinguish between the four basic types of speech. Our speech can be used to inform, to instruct, to entertain, or to persuade. In many cases, our speech will be used to do some combination of these. For instance, you may try to entertain when trying to instruct to make the lesson more fun, or you may try to inform to help to persuade someone about something.
In general, when individuals or groups talk about Free Speech, they usually talk about all types of speech. However, there are differences between what individuals say in a personal conversation, discussion or debate, verses what individuals say when they are paid or are paying to speak. The following is mainly an analysis of Free Speech but does apply more broadly to Paid Speech as well.
When we are truly trying to inform or to instruct someone, the goal would be to pass on knowledge (facts, information, and skills). If our feelings are appropriate to what we are trying to inform or to instruct, then we may also throw in some opinion. In most cases, if we are being truthful about things, then we should have a right to pass on those facts and opinions.
However, there are cases where revealing facts could cause undue harm. For instance, exposing top secret information to our enemies could endanger our security and even cost lives. Divulging trade secrets could damage a company's financial health or even the health of our economy. At some point in the future, revealing these facts may no longer cause any undue harm, but until then, we must protect ourselves and others from this speech.
When we are trying to entertain, we may use fact, fiction and opinion. If we make it clear that our speech is entertainment, and we make a clear distinction as to what is fact, fiction and opinion, then this speech should not cause any undue harm.
However, our speech is not always clear and can sometimes be easily misunderstood. This is even more true when we are trying to entertain and is especially true when using rhetorical devices such as irony, sarcasm, satire or paradox.
Irony occurs when individuals say something that is different from what they really mean or feel, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. Sarcasm occurs when the speaker intends to convey the opposite of what they say, typically to mock or to convey contempt. Satire is used to mock or expose vices or mistakes using such devices as exaggeration, understatement, irony or sarcasm. A paradox is a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that also contains a kernel of truth.
The problem with using these rhetorical devices is not only that they are often misinterpreted by some audience members, but that we may not always be sure which interpretation is the correct one based on what the entertainer meant. Which means we may not always be sure whether the entertainer's speech was or was not meant to be unduly harmful. However, even if it was not meant to be unduly harmful, it is unduly harmful by simply being unclear.
On the other hand, some forms of "entertainment" are just wrong. When entertainers resort to doing things like mocking someone's disability or promoting prejudice or hate, then they are causing undue harm, and we must hold them accountable.
When we are trying to persuade someone to do or to act in some specific way, we must use facts and opinions. We must also make it clear what is a fact and what is an opinion. In general, if someone has the facts about something, then that person can make an informed decision, and can be honestly persuaded or not. Therefore, if we are honest about what we are saying, then we should not be doing any undue harm and should be allowed to speak.
However, if we are not honest and delve into fiction, or if we use threats or coercion, then we are veering into manipulation. In general, someone would use manipulation to try to get individuals or groups to do something or to act in a way that is not in their best interest, and which could cause them or others undue harm. Therefore, almost any form of manipulation is bad. I talked a lot about this in the previous section on Knowledge.
On the other hand, there are some cases where manipulation may be okay or even needed to prevent something that is an even greater undue harm. For instance, lying to a criminal or terrorist to get a confession or to learn about plans for a robbery or a bombing.
In addition, even if you are presenting facts and stating your honest opinion, there could still be undue harm. For instance, you could be trying to persuade someone to commit a crime, like a robbery, a terrorist attack, or any other act that would cause someone undue harm. Individuals or groups trying to persuade or succeeding in persuading someone to do undue harm should be penalized just as harshly or even more harshly than someone who did that undue harm.
Although facts are always facts, a given opinion can be viewed differently depending on who offers the opinion. There is a big difference in someone giving their personal opinion about something versus someone giving their informed, expert or professional opinion about something.
Generally, someone else's opinion about something may not be any better or worse than our own opinion. However, the opinion of someone who is recognized as knowledgeable, experienced or an expert in the subject would be trusted by and carry more weight with more of us. This means that a bad "expert" opinion could do more undue harm. Therefore, we must hold individuals and groups who give their informed, expert or professional opinion to a higher standard and in turn appropriately penalize them when they offer a bad opinion.
For instance, there would be a big difference between an accountant and a doctor giving us an opinion on vaccinations. The accountant's opinion would probably be seen as just his personal opinion, but the doctor's opinion would probably be seen as an informed opinion. Therefore, a doctor's false medical opinion could cause more undue harm than that of an accountant. Similarly, your stockbroker’s opinion about a given stock would carry more weight than that of your plumber, and in turn a bad opinion could cause more undue harm.
In addition to Freedom of Speech we should also have the Freedom to Remain Silent. That is, in most cases, we should not be forced to say anything to anyone about anything. For instance, we should not be forced to give our opinion, answer polls, or talk to strangers or even to friends or family. If we wanted, we could even swear an oath of silence where most individuals and groups should not be allowed to force us to break it.
However, there are times when remaining silent can cause undue harm. For instance, we should always warn individuals and groups when it looks like they are about to harm themselves or inform them about something so that they do not miss out on something important. Therefore, in those cases where remaining silent would cause undue harm, we should hold individuals and groups accountable when they do not speak up.
There is also a case where we are told that we have the right to remain silent. Within the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". However, this does not actually say we can remain silent, it basically just says we cannot be compelled to incriminate ourselves.
Whether or not we are guilty of a crime, we should still be required to cooperate with the police as best we can without incriminating ourselves. This is important, because if we remain silent and do not answer any questions, then it could delay the police investigation, which could then allow more undue harm to be done. On the other hand, no one should ever be required to answer any questions that are not relevant to the investigation.
Along with Freedom of Speech, we should also have the Freedom to Listen or more specifically to not listen. Even if people have the freedom to speak, they do not have the right to force it upon others. That is, if someone does not want to listen to someone else, then that person should usually have the right not to listen.
However, there are some cases where undue harm can occur when we do not listen. If the harm from not listening just affects us, then that is just on us. In that case, since we are only causing ourselves harm, we should not receive any further penalty for not listening. On the other hand, if our not listening causes undue harm to someone else, then that is still on us, but it should now come with some appropriate further penalty.
For instance, someone might warn us about an oncoming car, or a passenger could warn a driver of a pedestrian in the road. In the first case, if we did not listen, then we may get hit by the car. The result might be that we get hurt, and depending on who was at fault, someone may get charged with a traffic violation, but we should not be further penalized for not listening. In the second case, if the driver does not listen and then hits and hurts the pedestrian, then the driver should get charged with something, even if the pedestrian bore some fault for going out into traffic.
Despite what some people may say, there is a big difference between free speech and paid speech. The main differences between free speech and paid speech would be in what people could talk about, and in what their audience size might be. There is also some difference between being paid to speak, paying to speak or paying someone else to speak. However, in each of those cases of paid speech, a lot depends on the amount of money that is involved.
For most of us, our free speech is only heard by a few friends, family members or acquaintances, but we could probably talk about anything that those people are willing to listen to. If we are a leader or spokesperson for or part of some protest or other newsworthy group or event, then we may get local or even national news coverage, but we would be limited to talking about the relevant topic. Even when the rich and famous are interviewed, they would usually only get to talk about something relevant to themselves or about something in the current news cycle.
When it comes to paid speech, the individuals or groups that pay get to decide what gets said. They also get to decide, based on how much they are willing and able to spend, how big an audience they want to have. For instance, they could try for a small group, a large auditorium, or a small or large television, radio or internet audience.
For individuals to be paid to speak, they usually need to be famous, powerful or an expert on something, and they are usually hired just to talk about something specific. Some paid speakers think that they have the right to speak about whatever they want, but unless that was what they were hired to do, they need to stick to what their employer hired them to speak about or be in breach of their contract.
The bottom line is that anyone who can afford to pay the price can speak as much and as loudly as they want. What they have to say may not be any more important or valuable compared to what the rest of us have to say, but they are the ones who most of us will hear. The problem is that they can drown out the voices of the rest of us, even when what we have to say is more important or valuable than what they are saying.
In a democracy, everyone is entitled to an equal say in our government. Even if the content of paid speech does not directly cause any undue harm, the fact that it drowns out what others have to say can be undue harm. Therefore, we must find ways to ensure that some individuals or groups are not able to buy a greater voice in our politics and in our government. We may not be able to make things completely equitable, but there are ways to make things a lot better. I will talk more about this in the sections of the chapter on political issues.
For some individuals, publishing a book can be a good way to speak to a lot of other individuals and in most cases to get paid for doing so. Other individuals then get to decide whether they want to read what these authors have written or not.
Like with any other type of speech, books can contain fact, fiction and opinion, and they can try to inform, to instruct, to entertain and to persuade. That means they also have the same potential to do undue harm.
In most cases, books need to go through a publishing company that would have a responsibility to ensure the books they publish will not do any undue harm. The publisher could do this by not publishing the book, editing the book to remove the undue harm, or to insert content that points out the harmful content. If the publisher does not do this, then the author and the publisher should be held accountable for any undue harm the book does.
In many communities, there has been an increasing push to ban certain books from school and community libraries. The reason that some individuals and groups express is that the books contain harmful content. However, others often disagree with them. If a book was found to have content that could do undue harm, then the author and publisher should be held accountable, and some appropriate action taken. This might include banning the book, but other actions should be considered first.
It is interesting to point out that banning a book can sometimes increase interest in some individuals to read the book. This could then defeat the efforts of those individuals and groups who do not want other individuals to read the book.
When there is disagreement over whether a book's contents would do undue harm, then there is an alternative to banning the book. What individuals and groups should do is to write reviews of the book that express their reasons for what is wrong or right about the book and then combine those reviews with the book. This way, anyone who wants to read the book could first consider what others think of the book, and then make an informed decision whether to read the book or not.
Much of what I talked about for books, also applies to shows and movies in theaters, television, streaming services, etc. In many cases, these shows and movies already have some warnings about their content. However, it would be good to have more reviews available somewhere when there is some disagreement over whether the content could cause undue harm or not.
For some famous individuals, what they have said and done is often amplified when we put up statues or name buildings in their honor. The reasons for doing this might include honoring the good that these individuals did, inspiring others to do similar good deeds, or boosting the prestige of the given location, building, group or whatever by associating it with the honored person.
However, some of these famous individuals had flaws or had also done something that many individuals and groups might think was bad. For this reason, some individuals have called for some of these statues to be removed or the buildings named after them to be renamed. The problem is that a lot of the individuals we might want to honor had flaws or did something that some individuals or groups might think was wrong. Therefore, there could be some individuals or groups who would object no matter who was honored and want the relevant statue taken down or the relevant building renamed.
Just because some otherwise good individuals had some flaws or also did some things wrong may not be reason enough to take down their statuses or to rename the buildings named in their honor. By doing so, we could disparage the good these individuals did. The exception might be if those individuals were found not to have done what they were being honored for, or if these individuals were being honored for something that was bad.
Instead, we should do something like what we should do instead of banning books. We could leave up the statues and keep the building names but add a plaque or update the existing plaque to include the flaws or wrongdoing of the individuals being honored. This way we would be able to continue to honor the good they did, but also educate us about the bad that they did.
On the other hand, there may be times when we want to honor someone new who did something even better than the person who was being honored. In that case, we may want to put up a new statue or to rename a building. However, we should not just forget about the previously honored person. We should therefore try to find a new spot, even if less prominent, for the statue or building name, and its plaque.
In our modern world, social media has become an important tool for many individuals and groups to speak their mind. Although we need a computer or smart phone to get on a social media platform, we can say as much as we want to as many individuals who are willing to listen. Of course, we may also have to listen to all those other individuals as well.
Being able to keep in touch with friends, family and others can be a good thing, but we can also be exposed to a lot of things that we do not want to hear. Some individuals and groups might send us messages that include misinformation, ridicule, bullying, hate, and worse. It has been shown that getting these negative types of messages can cause us to become angry, anxious and depressed.
When we are talking person to person, we can more easily pick up on nonverbal clues, which can help us better judge what the other person is really saying. In general, individuals we talk to in person are less likely to say negative things about us than they would otherwise. In addition, we can usually more easily avoid or not listen to individuals who are negative. On social media, none of that is usually the case.
Some social media companies do try to filter out some types of negative speech, but we do not have much, if any, say in what gets blocked. We should be given the ability to choose what and from whom we want to hear. This way, the social media companies would just need to rate all the messages, and to give us the options to decide what types of messages we are willing to get and from whom we want to get those messages. I have talked about this some in a previous section and will talk more about this in a later section.
For a democracy to succeed, it needs an informed and involved electorate. Historically, the way individuals have been best informed was via the newspapers printed by the press. Therefore, among other things, the first amendment to the Constitution granted us freedom of the press. Initially, the press mainly consisted of newspapers along with some magazines and pamphlets. Today, the news media includes newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and the various offerings found on the internet.
The main job of the news media is to inform its readers and viewers about the important facts about what has happened and is going on locally, nationally and globally. However, another job that some may say is even more important is to uncover and to report on corruption and other wrongdoing.
The press gets its information from news releases, public records, informants, investigations and interviews. However, since the public needs information that is accurate and factual to truly be informed, the press needs to ensure that the "facts" that it is reporting are true. Therefore, it must verify and corroborate its "facts" before reporting them.
In the last few decades, there have been a lot of changes in the way we get the news, especially with the expansion of the news media and of the social media on the internet. Some changes are good, some are bad, and some are both good and bad at the same time.
On the good side, transoceanic cables and satellites have enabled us to get the news as it is happening. On the bad side, about a fifth of the U.S. population now lives in an area that has lost or is about to lose all its local newspapers. On the good and bad side, we now have numerous sources of news, which give us more options for getting the news, but many of those options are not reliable sources of factual news.
One issue with the news today is the sheer volume of news. Each news source must decide what is important enough to report on. I have not found a single news media that reports on all the things that I want to know about. Therefore, I read my local newspaper, watch a broadcast new show, watch some cable news shows, and search the internet. Even then, I am often left feeling like I have not gotten all the news I need to keep me informed.
One of the main issues with many of the news media today is that they are biased. The main bias seems to be political, where the news is filtered and slanted to favor a more conservative or liberal view. In addition, some of the so-called news media outlets spout extremist views and conspiracy theories as if they were actual news.
The main underlying issues with the news business today are money and politics. Many news outlets are just in it for profit or are using the news to promote the political agenda of their owners. If a news outlet is trying to make money, then it wants to please its sponsors and audience, so it reports the news in a way that they want. Some so-called news outlets today want to promote some political agenda, usually that of the owners, but they could also be pandering to the political beliefs of their audience.
When the news media cannot agree on what is news and what are the facts, then we have a problem. Some individuals may get confused and not be able to tell what is and is not real news. Then we get many individuals believing different "truths" and not being able to agree on things.
I read about one study that tested people on how well they were informed about the news. They found that on average and when adjusting for other factors, individuals who did not watch any cable news shows were better informed than the individuals who watched one certain cable news channel.
Fixing the issues with our news outlets will not be easy. However, there are a few things that we can do. The first thing is to ensure individuals have the knowledge to better evaluate the news they hear. I talked a lot about that in the previous section on Knowledge. Then we need to hold news outlets accountable for any misinformation they spread. There have been a few recent lawsuits that have tried to do that. However, we need to update our laws so that it is easier for us to counter misinformation before it has a chance to do a lot of undue harm.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees "the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". These two rights are meant to help give individuals a voice in our government.
One way to petition our governments is to contact an appropriate agency. For instance, you might contact the IRS to fix income tax issues. You might contact the motor vehicle department to fix issues with your driver's license. You might contact the county property tax department to fix issues with your property tax. If you know what government department or agency to contact, then you can attempt to get your grievance addressed.
However, if we do not know the right department or agency to contact, it can be a problem. Some of us also get a run around when our issue does not fit neatly into the purview of one department or agency, or no one is willing to take the responsibility to help us. If we are lucky enough to be able to contact a representative at the appropriate level of government, then that representative may be able to help us.
What we really need is one government office in each local community that would have the responsibility to put individuals, groups and businesses into contact with the correct government department or agency. This office should not only be responsible for putting them into contact with the correct local, state and federal department or agency, but would also help with putting them into contact with their representatives.
When our issue cannot be handled by a government department or agency, we should be able to petition our representatives. For instance, at the local level, we may be able to speak at a local council meeting. At higher levels of government, we can always send our representatives a letter or email.
Getting an in-person meeting may be a bit harder for the average citizen. The problem is that our representatives have limited time and much of what time they do have needs to be spent on fundraising, since they need lots of money to get reelected. Therefore, they will devote most of their in-person time listening to and helping their big campaign donors and those individuals and groups who are already influential in some way.
To give all voters better access to their representatives, we need to get rid of the need for fundraising. The best way to do that is to have our governments fund the political campaigns. That would change the political calculation from needing big donors to help pay to get their message out to win votes, to needing to listen to the voters to win votes. I will talk more about this in a later section on a New Electoral Process.
When all else fails, we have the right to assemble and to try to take our message to other individuals, who can then help to get our message heard by our representatives. Some of the ways we can assemble include holding meetings, sit-ins, strikes, rallies, events or protests. Today, we can assemble both in person and online. However, we must assemble peaceably and not do any undue harm.
Too often things get out of hand when individuals assemble and things get violent, and individuals get hurt and property gets damaged. When that happens, too many individuals will focus on and talk about the harm that was done and not about the message. I often find it hard to separate them. No matter how upset or angry we may get over an issue, we must remember that we need to stay peaceful and do no undue harm, or our message may get lost.
We need to remember that undue harm is not limited to just physically harming someone or damaging property. It also includes any psychological harm that comes from threats, intimidation, and other forms of verbal abuse. In addition, although we do have the right to speak, individuals also have the right to not listen.
Undue harm can also come from things like preventing individuals from doing their jobs or going about their lives. For instance, protesters should be able to assemble and share their message, but they do not have the right to prevent us from entering a building or driving down a street. We may need to get to the hospital, get medicine for our sick children, pay our bills before our utilities are cut off, or do any of hundreds of other things that would be harmful if we were prevented from doing so on time.
A special interest group would be an association of individuals or organizations, usually formally organized, that has one or more shared concerns and that attempts to influence public policy in its favor. A special interest group may also be called an advocacy group or pressure group. These groups give us another way to petition our governments. By combining our voices, we can often speak loud enough to be heard.
A special interest group can be formed around some given issue, where we want some specific action taken. For instance, we may form a group to save a park, to get more funding for a school program, to get some law passed or repealed, or to get any number of other things at the local, state or federal level. On the other hand, an existing group set up for some related purpose or agenda may lobby for some specific action.
However, an issue arises when the leaders or some members of a group decide to lobby for something that the other members of the group have not agreed to. In this case, some members of the group are basically stealing the time and money of some of its other members.
In a single-issue group, members should have the right to kick out those people trying to change their goal, to pull out of the group, to get part of their donations back, or to form a new group. If it is an existing group wanting to lobby for something new, then that group should be required to form a separate subgroup that would get its own volunteers and raise its own money.
For instance, if a group was formed to save a park, then some members of the group cannot just change their goal to something else, unless everyone agreed to the change. If a group was formed to advocate for a safer neighborhood, then each specific proposal should get its own committee, which would need to get its own volunteers and donations. Taking money from the whole group could force some individuals or groups to pay to advocate for something they did not agree with, which would take away some of their liberty and freedom.
Even though most individuals and groups would agree that we all deserve our liberty and freedom, there are many individuals and groups that want to deny some individuals or groups their liberty and freedom. Some individuals and groups are direct in what they say and do in trying to deny others their liberty and freedom. Others are more subtle in what they say and do. In either case, they are being hypocritical in wanting their liberty and freedom, while trying to deny them to some others.
A prime example of this hypocrisy can be seen with our freedom of speech. There are individuals and groups who want the right to say whatever they want and will claim that whatever they say is protected. However, these same individuals and groups will try to limit what others can say. For example, they may try to get certain books banned or try to limit what can be taught in schools. In essence, these individuals and groups are saying that we only have freedom of speech when we say things that they agree with.
We all have the same right to liberty and freedom. The only case when we should lose some appropriate liberty or freedom is when we have done or are doing some undue harm. To be clear, anyone denying someone else their liberty or freedom absent from that person having done or doing undue harm is doing undue harm and should therefore lose some appropriate liberty or freedom.
Pursuit of Happiness -
Some facts about Pursuit of Happiness to keep in mind on Our Future Path.
|