A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
===================
Liberty is good for us, and the freedom to choose Coke is an excellent
exercise of that liberty.
======================

We could have a more meaningful discussion of "liberty" if we are able
to define what limits, if any, there are on liberty.

There are limits, of course, but in general unless some individual's actions
actually harm, or imminently threaten to harm another person, they ought to
be at liberty to do as they please.

And exactly "who"
has this liberty?

Everyone.


For example, is a woman at liberty to choose what happens to her body?

Certainly. The question is, however, is a baby inside her body part of "her
body," and if so, when does the child become a distinct and separate
"person" imbued with rights?

Am I at liberty to hold loud parties which distrub my neighbors' sleep?

Maybe. Does your neighbor sleep during the day? Is your neighbor
particularly suceptible to noise? Does he make efforts to mask or reduce the
noise so that you may reasonably enjoy your property?

Am I at liberty to operate a car repair service in an otherwise
residential neighborhood?

Why not? If it doesn't cause some direct harm to your neighbors, and they
don't object, why should the government interfere?


Can we really say, as a blanket statement, with no caveats, that,
"Liberty is good for us...."

Liberty is good for us. I did not mean to suggest that liberty must not be
ordered or that unfettered liberty that is harmful to others is permissible.

Perhaps the best maxim I can give is "Your right to swing your fist ends at
my nose."

But, liberty is ALWAYS preferable to tyranny and oppression, without
exception.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser