Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do too many civil liberties tear societies apart? Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    In my mind, there is such a focus on civil liberty that we have totally undermined almost every form of authority.
    Good.

    Although, I would add that when internalised authority is waning, that is individuals are less respectful of authority, the corollary of which is that institutions of authority have to assert their power more and more.

    And I wouldn't argue that we have too much liberty for precisely that reason; ^ that we don't really have that much at all. When the fabric of society is viewed to be falling apart or under threat it's used to justify repression. The "fabric of society" is simply, then, the interests of authority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As Durkheim knew, man requires authority.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    God I'm babbling :moon:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    As Durkheim knew, man requires authority.
    Oh, did he really? "Knew" it did he?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    In my mind, there is such a focus on civil liberty that we have totally undermined almost every form of authority.
    The vast majority of the public in this country support the suspension of habeas corpus for the illusion of security. What's so libertarian about that?

    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    politicians too scared to clamp down on anything in case they are seen as “too hardline”
    Such as?

    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    we have people suing the army because going into battle undermines their “human rights”.
    I think it's perfectly reasonable for soldiers and their families to expect that they will be provided with adequate

    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    Surely, if we focus so much on individual rights, we undermine the very nature of society, that is, a group of people working together for the common good?
    As others have said, the government has never been as intrusive and powerful as it is today.

    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    There is a quote that probably came from some awful film, but it goes “your rights end where the next person's begin”. I often think that this has been forgotten.
    Why are you quoting that statement? Surely it goes against the authoritarian argument you're proposing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    You mean the cultural position doesn't suit your prejudices?
    No, the cultural position is not suited to the survival of western civilisation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, the cultural position is not suited to the survival of western civilisation.
    How so?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, the cultural position is not suited to the survival of western civilisation.
    I'd take you so much more seriously if you didn't take such an apocalyptic tone.

    How on earth is western civilisation in danger of perishing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camden Town)
    How so?
    Post-modernism
    Relativism
    Patriaphobia
    Multiculturism
    Ignorance
    Mass Immigration
    etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Post-modernism
    Relativism
    Patriaphobia
    Multiculturism
    Ignorance
    Mass Immigration
    etc
    I'm not seeing these bringing down western civilisation somehow

    Except possibly ignorance, though the main origin of this seems to be conservatives
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Post-modernism
    Relativism
    Patriaphobia
    Ignorance
    Multiculturism
    Mass Immigration
    etc
    Civilizations evolve over time and so I don't see how the above - with the exception of ignorance, which, as Andy correctly identified, mainly stems from the right - can't be incorporated into Western society.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camden Town)
    The vast majority of the public in this country support the suspension of habeas corpus for the illusion of security. What's so libertarian about that?
    Data?

    (Original post by Camden Town)
    I think it's perfectly reasonable for soldiers and their families to expect that they will be provided with adequate
    Oh please, we're not still taking about helicopters, are we? I forgot that your chances of winning a war are directly related to the number of helicopters you have. We live in such a risk adverse society that even our armed forces are not allowed to be in danger. War is dangerous, if you don't like that, don't join the army! Not that wider society gives the army much respect anyway, as I said, pretty much every symbol of authority has been undermined.


    (Original post by Camden Town)
    As others have said, the government has never been as intrusive and powerful as it is today.
    Seriously, I hear this all the time. Quite how are they intruding? Is this a CCTV arguement? I would say the commercial world are a hundred times more likely to intrude than any governement department, local or national. Funny thing is, when the government does nothing, people say that they were not protected, when the government steps in, people cry "nanny state". Again, it is a lack of responsibility due to this obsession with ones individualism, individualism without responsibility

    (Original post by Camden Town)
    Why are you quoting that statement? Surely it goes against the authoritarian argument you're proposing.
    No it does not go against what I am proposing in any way. The quote itself clearly accepts that there should be a limit to individual freedom.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Good.

    Although, I would add that when internalised authority is waning, that is individuals are less respectful of authority, the corollary of which is that institutions of authority have to assert their power more and more.

    And I wouldn't argue that we have too much liberty for precisely that reason; ^ that we don't really have that much at all. When the fabric of society is viewed to be falling apart or under threat it's used to justify repression. The "fabric of society" is simply, then, the interests of authority.
    Your post works on the assumption that all authority is inherently evil and trying to repress the general population and that this is one big power struggle. Modern western society is very different from the fuedal and monarch based societies of the past, and I don't think recent UK governments have done much more than attempt to ensure societal stability.

    I don't want to go off topic, but I think the biggest danger to our civil liberties come from the commercial sector, which clearly does have an agenda to control us in order to increase profits. But people tend to turn a blind eye to this...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    Data?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ism.uksecurity
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/your...detention.html

    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    Oh please, we're not still taking about helicopters, are we? I forgot that your chances of winning a war are directly related to the number of helicopters you have. We live in such a risk adverse society that even our armed forces are not allowed to be in danger. War is dangerous, if you don't like that, don't join the army! Not that wider society gives the army much respect anyway, as I said, pretty much every symbol of authority has been undermined.
    No, I'm not talking about helicopters. I'm talking about body armour. Surely the governmennt must provide such basic protection if it's going to deploy the troops.

    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    Seriously, I hear this all the time. Quite how are they intruding? Is this a CCTV arguement? I would say the commercial world are a hundred times more likely to intrude than any governement department, local or national.
    Do you want examples? Ok.

    Banning smoking in all pubs, clubs, restaurants, etc;
    Increasing the number of days they can detain you before you're charged;
    Laws such the Religious Hatred Act that undermine our right to free speech;
    Although Britain's population is 1% of the world total and our landmass comprises 0.2% of the worlds surface, 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras are right here in good old Britain;
    The government's ID card scheme and the DNA database - both supported by the public; etc.

    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    Funny thing is, when the government does nothing, people say that they were not protected, when the government steps in, people cry "nanny state". Again, it is a lack of responsibility due to this obsession with ones individualism, individualism without responsibility
    You have to realise that there are 61 million people in the UK and that they don't think in unison. Some are more comfortable with government intervention and some prefer individual responsibility.

    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    The quote itself clearly accepts that there should be a limit to individual freedom.
    The quote clearly accepts that there should be a limit to individual freedom when that freedom infringes upon the freedom of another person, not for the 'well-being of society'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socmyoligy)
    Your post works on the assumption that all authority is inherently evil
    All illegitimate authority is inherently evil. Most authority just happens to be illegitimate.

    and trying to repress the general population and that this is one big power struggle.Modern western society is very different from the fuedal and monarch based societies of the past, and I don't think recent UK governments have done much more than attempt to ensure societal stability.
    Politics is power struggle.

    I don't want to go off topic, but I think the biggest danger to our civil liberties come from the commercial sector, which clearly does have an agenda to control us in order to increase profits. But people tend to turn a blind eye to this...
    The commercial sector and the government have interests in each other.

    I should have said in my original post by the way that I don't think that this is, for the most part, what is happening here. Largely British society is all for repression as long as parliament isn't buying duck ponds with their money. The fact most people want a general election and a Tory government, rather than no government at all, would show that Wait, I forgot, only half the country bothers to vote. Okay, most people don't give a ****, but I'm tired so can't be arsed to think anymore. Our state, like all states, has a tendency to the illiberal, however, and with privately-run prisons and security (and I could go on about commercial interests in government, such as - was it eon? - tapping potential protesters at one of their plants or something...), I concur about the commercial sector but don't see this as a separate or more important problem than the government.

    (After all, the private sector can repress us but the only difference between private sector repression and public sector repression is legitimacy. The moment Tesco or whomever is perceived to have a right to repress - and that is when it becomes most dangerous - it becomes a government)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camden Town)
    Banning smoking in all pubs, clubs, restaurants, etc;
    Most people don't smoke, therefore this law benefited the majority and hence fulfilled the concept of the greater good. Remember, your freedoms end where mine begin.. well, I don't smoke and I don't want to breath yours.

    (Original post by Camden Town)
    Increasing the number of days they can detain you before you're charged;
    Yup, crime is a huge problem for society and if this helps the police, good. Again, a small number will suffer but the vast majority will benefit. Those held still have their standard rights (which I have not argued against) and will be protected under law.

    (Original post by Camden Town)
    Laws such the Religious Hatred Act that undermine our right to free speech;
    Stable society is far more important than some idiot that wants to create tensions which could in turn lead to riots and voilence. The left cling onto this as they feel it demonstrates a government "clamping down on freedom". Should we let people be racist? Homophobic? Using your arguement, we should.

    (Original post by Camden Town)
    Although Britain's population is 1% of the world total and our landmass comprises 0.2% of the worlds surface, 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras are right here in good old Britain;
    And how has this impacted on you? How have you been "damaged" by this? If I'm in a public place, what is the problem? In fact, I can't think of a single instance when CCTV has actually hurt anyone... oh, unless they committed a crime. Do you think the government cares what you get up to? It only cares if you are breaking the law.

    The government's ID card scheme and the DNA database - both supported by the public; etc.
    Imagine how many thousands of open crimes would be solved if a full DNA database was introduced. Again, how would this impact on you unless you had committed a crime. Now, if the commercial world got hold of this, yes, It could be nastly. But that is not government related.

    The quote clearly accepts that there should be a limit to individual freedom when that freedom infringes upon the freedom of another person, not for the 'well-being of society'.
    I think the "next person" could represent another member of society.. in fact, I think that is what it is meant to represent,
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There needs to be a balance. Civil liberties where civil liberties are appropriate, and social constraints where social constraints are appropriate. People should ideally be free to be themselves, but when their behaviours are socially destructive or infringe on the freedoms of others, that is bad.

    Also, we need to get things into perspective. I think you can't put the same values on economic freedom as social freedom. Whilst homosexuality should be perfectly normal, and all laws secular and scientifically competent, the game is changed when we're talking about economic rights. There are issues of practicality, such as intellectual property, taxation, public needs, fair trade, and so on and so forth. I don't believe that socio-economic issues are solved by liberty as much as a fair system, appealing to fair play and common sense, as it were, rather than greed and oligarchy, which do result from free markets but effectively clog up their arteries if most of the capitalist gains go to the wealthy.
    It's common sense that attractive business conditions allow for economic prosperity, but it's also only fair that society sees a good amount of that wealth going towards a general benefit, as opposed to people being free to hoard huge fortunes and only ever wanting more, or companies being free to pay obscene salaries to very greedy people all in the name of more profit.
    In the same way, the lack of freedom people have over taxes is necessary to a functioning society.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    All illegitimate authority is inherently evil. Most authority just happens to be illegitimate.



    Politics is power struggle.



    The commercial sector and the government have interests in each other.

    I should have said in my original post by the way that I don't think that this is, for the most part, what is happening here. Largely British society is all for repression as long as parliament isn't buying duck ponds with their money. The fact most people want a general election and a Tory government, rather than no government at all, would show that Wait, I forgot, only half the country bothers to vote. Okay, most people don't give a ****, but I'm tired so can't be arsed to think anymore. Our state, like all states, has a tendency to the illiberal, however, and with privately-run prisons and security (and I could go on about commercial interests in government, such as - was it eon? - tapping potential protesters at one of their plants or something...), I concur about the commercial sector but don't see this as a separate or more important problem than the government.

    (After all, the private sector can repress us but the only difference between private sector repression and public sector repression is legitimacy. The moment Tesco or whomever is perceived to have a right to repress - and that is when it becomes most dangerous - it becomes a government)
    It sounds like a rather marxist interpretation of the country, but I do see where you are coming from. However, in regards to your comment that "politics is a power struggle", it is, but not between the state and the populace.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There has to be a balance between duty and rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    There has to be a balance between duty and rights.
    Yep, you have the duty to respect my rights :top:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.