Prior to the demands and the consequent with the tasks of a society can be discussed, the priority of liberty is, there must be a definition of "freedom." Since the tragic events of 11 September 2001 in the published opinion instead twisting the concept of freedom. All this happens used to hide the sometimes far-reaching dimension of the restriction of civil rights before the average citizen. Important assumptions of law, such as the presumption of innocence to be abandoned and declared all citizens to potential terrorists. All this happens only supposed to protect us. The rule of law is turned into a police state acting preventively, which everyone identifies as potentially dangerous and subversive.
This is similar to a "suicide for fear of death." Instead of destroying the terrorists our rule of law, their alleged target, let us take the love itself Unquestionably, there are people who are evil want. And even some of these are unquestionably so desperate that they are willing to many innocent people and killing himself. But is the "International Islamic terrorism" is a skillfully by the group and state media blown conspiracy theory. Neither has said the "movement" in such a homogeneous and closed as is suggested, nor is there in the center of a diabolical mastermind of all actions are coordinated.
die each year in the Federal Republic of Germany 30 people by a blow from lightning. By terror in general, so do not even Islamist terror especially marked, since 9 / 11 died, not a single German. The terror in Germany is an unreal nightmare, as well as Bruno the poltergeist in my grandma's basement. But the loss of our freedoms, is all too real
loss implies a previous possession of something. However, one can not have freedom as a chair or a car, not even as intelligence or creativity. For freedom is no good as such and no formal qualifications but it is precious. So what is freedom?
is primarily the perception of diffuse and therefore their definition so difficult. Some contemporaries even speak of it, that there is no concrete definition of freedom. If this were so, the question arises how whole generations of people from their own initiative were shedding blood for something that they, for lack of definition, not able to fathom were. Not at all, there is no definition. They exist, but the problem is, as so often, the knowledge of them.
One common definition of freedom is "the possibility can not be forced to choose between different alternatives." But if in fact only the absence of any constraints allows freedom, none of us is really free. Be it through so obviously artificial constraints, such as cognitive programming through advertising and propaganda, or simply the natural urge to eat, drink or sleep - before there is no compulsion Escape. In particular, when the psychological effects of hormones and other mechanisms of our body is conscious, it is difficult to accept even a free thinking only, by the close to a free action can be. Take this free thinking even when separated from the physical body existent awareness, we lose the "Slip into the body suit" completely the possibility of objective clarity required for the freedom of choice. But maybe it's not that complicated.
the Brockhaus Encyclopedia, 1894, I found, possibly due to the lower temporal distance from the Age of Enlightenment, which in my opinion according to definitions apply. It states: "freedom [is] in general as much importance as independence, independence from external coercion [...]." This definition is the John Stuart Mill, is similar to freedom as' the independence of the individual from governmental and social challenges and constraints watched. Both definitions speak specifically of external constraints, as mentioned above, whether artificial or natural, are all part of what is known as the ego. They are part of our self and thus do not limit ourselves.
We are now forced once our body and its influences to let it wash over us. And ergo, the real existing clarity is looking for something that Stoic logicians, but probably never completely be found.
The world is ordered by reason, but led by emotions. The real existence is ordered by embracing valid laws. Our cognitive shortcomings make it impossible for us only to see the world as it is - a world as cold calculation on the basis of reason.
Many thinkers of liberalism argue in their search for a justification of freedom with natural rights, ie rights which every human being has unconditionally. The largest piece of work this Art is the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. is written there: "We hold these truths to be for that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
What is an inalienable right ? The notion of inalienability is among the most liberal, but libertarian guaranteed under an irrefutable assumption: namely, that every man is born with basic rights. This is referred to the case of negative rights. You must be granted by any government and written are to exist and to be effective. Specifically in the Declaration of Independence the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are called.
most important basis of this argument is the right to property. Man receives the property with the birth of himself His body belongs to him and therefore he does for every action of his body in charge. If the person is injured or killed, he is wrong committed and the offender is a thief on the human body. This is the justification for the rights to life and physical integrity. Weiterführend can be derived the right to self defense and therefore the private gun ownership are derived. Since each action happens in the human body to the responsibility of man he is completely free in his actions.
The work of the people, the value of his property. All that creates a man with his own hands his own while he is thus not a thief on the property of his fellow man is, therefore, through slavery or theft. The right to the pursuit of happiness is the right to retain the fruits of his labor and multiply. Thus the circle of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the right to property. Instead of finding the reason for the inalienability of these rights, we have found another piece of legislation whose Determinism must be regarded as inalienable. Not rare to find so at this point the reference to Adam and Eve who were given dominion over the earth by God and therefore have a right to ownership of it. However, since it crashed with a theological argument, and rightly so, all too quickly on the wall of skepticism, we will instead address the question of what is actually a right and how can it be inalienable.
A right is nothing more than a guarantee. So a binding promise. A guarantee must be given by someone and locked. If one excludes the work of transcendental entities can only be a guarantor of this man. If you ask someone for a right, it may grant deny it or escape again. How can such a right can be inalienable, if it can be withdrawn at any time? Who else than you can give themselves an inalienable right, an irrevocable guarantee? The answer is, that's the only man able to defend his own right granted in the location is an inalienable right to possess. I speak in this context of "individual sovereignty", the power to act freely and justify this action in any form whatsoever, to be able to. Only the sovereign is To underline his own of his claims with appropriate stress white - Only he is capable of the title to himself and what he creates to be asserted.
George Carlin, an American comedian, said in one of his shows: "[...] people, I'm really sorry you have to spoil the fun, but is such a thing as rights, it not. We have thought of us. [...] Rights are just an idea. You are just invented. [...] In my opinion, can apply only one of two things: either we have unlimited rights or no rights. Personally, I lean toward unlimited rights. I am the Opinion I have the right to do whatever I want. But! If I do what you do not like something then you have the right to kill me! Where to find a fairer deal than this? "
This is admittedly a rather menacing look that easy to" remember the survival of the fittest ", but it is applicable as a basis for the first time. What Carlin describes the state of nature. Who would have rights, they must provide themselves. Who would like a protection of his rights, it must protect itself. As far as anyone is able to protect his rights as far as the sphere of his rights. The individually Weak subject here, the individually strong. And for that reason were communities such as family, tribe and, ultimately, complex societies. All these communities are alliances of the individually weak against the strong individual. They are groups that make an agreement on the individual rights of its members and what are the limitations of these rights are proportionate.
proportionality is a term in jurisprudence in particular in the issue of basic legal procedures always comes up. Not for nothing that he is after all an essential part of any legal opinion, which deals with the subject. Proportionality deals with the question of how far apart the restriction of individual rights of each participant in the group. The fight for the right balance between individual rights and the preservation of order and security in society is as old as man himself and the people will probably accompany it to the end of time or his ego.
individuals join together to give parts of their individual rights. They limit to create the sphere of their rights in return for a collective sphere. Weak individuals who find themselves together in a group, do so in order to defy a strong individual or another group. Close together to the martial state of nature to escape chaos. The task of a portion of their sovereignty, as the right of someone who commits them wrong address, even leads to the profit of collective sovereignty. The more rights and sovereignty of the participants in the company, whether voluntarily or under compulsion was once undecided, contribute to society, the greater is the power which it has potentially through other companies. Authoritarian and totalitarian nations managed to raise large amounts of goods and workers against companies, which they regard as their enemies. At the same time members of such communities do not usually lose only the rights of the property in their possession but also their ownership of her person.
sum up thus: The individual rights extend only as far as the individual is able to enforce against the claims of others. Several individuals restrict their personal rights by agreements to enforce their claims to the remaining individual rights more effectively against competitors. Consequently, any right that is not restricted by an agreement with the group, the freedom of the individual.
We have now clarified what the variable freedom. Through this Definition, we now know where we need to look to you to determine how free a society is. In conclusion, the question now but how free can be a society and must. This is the question of the principle of freedom.
Everyone is now a member of a society. It it begs the question how large should only be the freedom of the individual. This gives us a more decisive nature Note: The man has an ego. He is an individual. If nature wanted it would have been different for us, we like bees or ants would live in mindless collective. It is this experiment was repeated in human history undertaken in many places. Be it the fascists in Nazi Germany and Japan or the Communists in the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China, they all wanted to create societies in which man gives up what is most dear to him: his ego.
is equally a man but not a hermit. He needs, as demonstrated his fellows for his own protection and seeks the community because it is his nature.
The title of the person's own best reflects the nature of man. The human being is an individual and belongs to no one but themselves the same time, but every man, from one another, suffering caused to be wrong, for discord in the community will nullify it. The man is completely free in his actions and can freely dispose of his body if he would not inflict that harm. Everything he creates in a lawful act that is his and he can benefit, so long as it harms no one.
The right to own property is inalienable because it arises from the nature of man and that's why a society can only be liberal when they investigated the people impose changes for a new nature, but lends itself so set up that it's human nature enables the development and also ensures the legality of his actions.
a free society that is characterized by that it gives its members the opportunity to use their property as they deem fit to prevent the same time they use it to the detriment of others. You must create the largest possible sphere of individual rights, which is limited by the smallest possible sphere of collective rights.
