Forums → WEPR → Priority of Rights

Why must it be an either or situation? In real life how practical is that? We can either have a right to liberty, in which case criminals can do (basically) whatever they please because no one can encroach upon people's freedom to do what they want OR we can have right to safety where law inforcement can break into your house and ransack it because they feel like it.

In all practicality there needs to be a balance of both; the "superior" right may change from situation to situation.

I would rather have the right of liberty. Im just fine without safety because I would judt carry around a 9mm everwhere. Without liberty we would be really unsafe.

@Eyes- To kill someone or steal from them would take away their right to liberty, and thus punishment is necessary.

Ok...I'm following. But what about everything leading up to the commission of the crime? If someone were to threaten someone? Whose liberty takes precedent? The person doing the threatening would both be taking away the other's liberty and exerting their own rights to say what they want. Doesn't there need to be some sort of right to safety thrown in before someone gets killed?

And what about after the killing? If the killer is innocent until proven guilty doesn't he have the right to liberty still? If he has the absolute right to liberty he can't be imprisoned. Could his house or property be searched without infringing his right to liberty?

What about airports or the border? If people have a right to liberty before they have a right to safety, you can't screen passengers or people coming into the country, even if they might be carring something dangerous.

This sounds more like justice than liberty to me. I can see how all of these American ideas can seem alike.

@ Ninjacube: ...it IS justice. The laws are there to balance people's right to liberty and their rights to safety. In other words, you can do what you want until it starts to endanger others, at which point the law steps in and you are in trouble. Er, at least that is the simplistic, ideal version.

Both rights are rights for a reason. Safety, well, safety is there so you can be safe. It pretty much is self defense, like you have a right to self defense.

Liberty though, is also quite important. Liberty is a firm cornerstone in any nation. Throughout history, the countries that allowed Liberty were ususally the strongest and the longest lasing empire.

@eyes- If someone were to threaten someone that is like coercion and threatens another's right to life (without which you have no freedom) so action would be taken. The killer has Habeas Corpus, if the judge decides the prosecution has reasonable evidence they may detain him until a jury trial, also to search his property a warrant is needed to ensure that is not arbitrary espionage. Well, under a principle of liberty there wouldn't really be any controlled substances to catch at the border, and it is the airlines responsibility to search their passengers for weapons, not the government.

@Rathraid- Safety in this context is slightly different than self-defense, it's the government creating safety for people.

@Ninjacube- There are many different conceptions of justice, and liberty or safety fall under some of them.

Ah...goverment creating safety? Well, many goverments are trying valiantly, and are failing. Well then, a right of liberty is better then a right of safety. The right of liberty will let us choose our own actions. Most people choose the right course of action, and therefore, we give ourselves our safety.

If someone were to threaten someone that is like coercion and threatens another's right to life (without which you have no freedom) so action would be taken.

The killer has Habeas Corpus, if the judge decides the prosecution has reasonable evidence they may detain him until a jury trial, also to search his property a warrant is needed to ensure that is not arbitrary espionage.

Well, under a principle of liberty there wouldn't really be any controlled substances to catch at the border, and it is the airlines responsibility to search their passengers for weapons, not the government