2007-09-23 02:01:24 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Answer: First one needs to understand the individual as primary, and agreeing to "laws"...before one by assigning liberties, places a limit on the same.
2007-09-23 02:09:29 · answer #1 · answered by trumain 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
OK, Thou shalt not Kill (ten commandments) does this make sense. The repercussions of me killing you would then allow your brother (or anyone else for that matter to kill me) the law makes sense. This law should make it safe for me to walk about unarmed without fear and protect my individual human right to roam amongst the populace and perform my rights to disagree, object and voice my opinions. But! if I break that law then i should expect to be punished and the previous civil Liberties be removed
All laws should make sense and be as simple as possible, what is the good of laws that only a few understand. Therefore the balance is that Law both gives liberty and takes Liberty away at the same time depending if you are the victim or criminal.
ATB Red
2007-09-23 03:14:41 · answer #2 · answered by Redmonk 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my world laws control the masses liberties are what the rich and famous take without retrebution.
2007-09-23 02:17:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a word, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
John Mill put it more academically when he said that we should all enjoy the maximum freedom consistent with all others having the same freedom.
For instance, alone on a road guaranteed to be deserted, I can drive on either side, ignore red lights, and go 180 mph round corners. I endanger only myself. In normal circumstances my liberty is circumscribed to ensure other road users have the same limited freedom.
If you need more, read J.S.Mill's "On Liberty".
2007-09-23 02:11:17 · answer #4 · answered by Michael B 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a thing that can be argued to and fro with no agreement from anyone.law is generally made up as you go,with ongoing modifications and case law making constant changes as society progresses.New laws come in as new problems arise.The grey areas are the problem.
2007-09-23 02:13:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The only justified laws are the ones that punish someone for infringing on another person's individual liberty.
2007-09-23 02:07:43 · answer #6 · answered by harshmistressmoon 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This philosophical argument has been around since time
Try a little Plato's Republic then social contract theory that should give you a nice foundation for what ever report you need to do
2007-09-23 02:11:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the need for laws is for profit. this is why all of our prisons in america are private now. private means money maker. if they are empty, not much profit. we have the highest percentage of our people in prison than any other country on earth. we no longer have individual freedom. it used to be law that your rights extended as far as you choose until you violate another person's rights.
2007-09-23 02:09:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The need for laws is in direct prportion to the amount of control to be administered to the masses from the powers that be.
With to many liberties it is next to impossible to administer and keep that same control.
2007-09-23 02:08:20 · answer #9 · answered by Don M 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Seen that question before. You need to do your own homework, getting answers from here won't help your knowledge or understanding.
2007-09-23 04:30:40 · answer #10 · answered by champer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋