PDA

View Full Version : Why "CIVIL LIBERTIES" & not "CIVIL RIGHTS"?



Reason
09-04-2009, 01:47 AM
Seems like civil rights makes more sense.

I like the idea that civil rights cannot be taken away; just infringed upon.

Thoughts?
Conza88
09-04-2009, 02:04 AM
"Human Rights" as Property Rights (http://mises.org/story/2569)
DamianTV
09-04-2009, 09:37 PM
Liberties can be restricted, Rights can not.

And for the record, why not Constitutional Rights, not Constitutional Liberties?
Reason
09-04-2009, 11:04 PM
"Human Rights" as Property Rights (http://mises.org/story/2569)

Fascinating.

Love the example of shouting "fire" in a movie theater.

Not sure it completely addresses the difference between "rights" and "liberties" tho.
virgil47
09-05-2009, 02:28 PM
Fascinating.

Love the example of shouting "fire" in a movie theater.



Not sure it completely addresses the difference between "rights" and "liberties" tho.

For such educated writers I'm surprised by the absolutist conclusion that one can not shout fire in a movie theater. They did not consider that you can indeed shout fire in a theater if there is a fire that may endanger the lives of all of those present. So while you may not shout fire in the absence of fire you may indeed shout fire in the presence of fire. Not only may you shout fire you actually have moral and perhaps a legal obligation to do so.
Conza88
09-05-2009, 09:14 PM
For such educated writers I'm surprised by the absolutist conclusion that one can not shout fire in a movie theater. They did not consider that you can indeed shout fire in a theater if there is a fire that may endanger the lives of all of those present. So while you may not shout fire in the absence of fire you may indeed shout fire in the presence of fire. Not only may you shout fire you actually have moral and perhaps a legal obligation to do so.

Nah, that was addressed and considered.