by Lucius Trae

Created on: June 03, 2010

Throughout my life, I've changed my views on a variety of political matters. In modern societies, I feel people take freedom for granted, and we should try to ensure our freedoms are protected. Obviously, society also needs to work towards the safety of the people, and that includes things like laws against theft and unprovoked violence. However, neither security or liberty should take outweigh one another completely. There is a balance to be struck, and I believe it favors liberty to the utmost degree. That said, there are simple matters that call for infringements on personal freedom.

Historically, people have interpreted liberty in reference to "the ability to act as you wish without interference from others." In fact, the philosopher John Stuart Mill made an important clarification. In order to maximize freedom, people must be prevented from harming others or limiting their freedom. I can't assault someone, and I can't prevent them from walking in the woods because I think it is too dangerous. A person's life is their own to risk, according to Mill.

The values Mill supports were popularized by his writings, but they had been commonplace already. The founding fathers of America, in fact, held freedom in high regard. In the views of many, restricting freedom is in opposition to the values of the country. The argument is that if we enforce rules of safety in one regard, why not for unhealthy eating or other issues?

Even Mill was guilty of using the slippery slope fallacy. People are inclined to say things like "if we let women vote, will animals be next." I believe such comparisons were prevalent during the woman's suffrage movement, for instance. However, it's perfectly feasible to restrict freedom in certain cases. In fact, the law seeks impartiality and consistency, but it does not pose a problem for other freedoms. For instance, if we enforce helmet laws for safety, we do not have to ban cigarettes, pollution, etc.

All that is required "on the books" is something arbitrary that differentiates a case. For instance, the law might declare that "all blacks are allowed to vote," but the same country does not want to allow French black citizens to vote. Although it's clearly inconsistent and morally inappropriate, the law can easily say something like "French black people are different" and that's it. There really isn't much stopping society from having all kinds of wacky laws - if they so choose.

The reason helmets are enforced is because they protect the rider

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>