Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    No government allows absolute liberty. — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    No government allows absolute liberty.

    Democracy & GovernanceRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Government is the establishment of society upon certain laws requiring conformity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Absolute liberty is allowing anyone to do as they please.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The ideas of conformity to law and doing as one pleases cannot logically agree.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke himself argues that in the state of nature individuals possess perfect freedom governed only by natural law, not human legislation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Constitutional governments that codify unenumerated natural rights—as in the Ninth Amendment tradition—institutionally preserve pre-political liberties the state cannot abridge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A government that legally binds itself never to restrict certain freedoms thereby allows absolute liberty within those constitutionally entrenched zones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's harm principle holds that government legitimately restricts only liberty that harms others, leaving a sovereign domain of absolute self-regarding freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an absolute sphere of personal liberty exists beyond legitimate state interference, then government structurally permits absolute liberty within that protected domain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Rights & LibertyDemocracy & Governance

    Connections

    2 topics

    Social Contract2 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A government that legally binds itself never to restrict certain freedoms thereb...Absolute liberty is allowing anyone to do as they please.Constitutional governments that codify unenumerated natural rights—as in the Nin...Government is the establishment of society upon certain laws requiring conformit...
    +4 moreShow less
    If an absolute sphere of personal liberty exists beyond legitimate state interfe...Locke himself argues that in the state of nature individuals possess perfect fre...Mill's harm principle holds that government legitimately restricts only liberty ...

    Similar

    Absolute liberty is allowing anyone to do as they please.84%A government must separate executive, legislative, and judicial powers...79%Moral freedom is obedience to a law that one has prescribed to oneself...77%Reconciling individual freedom with state authority is necessary.77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: locke-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    This might seem to be a tall order when considering the controversy generated by beliefs about moral rules, yet Locke clearly believes that moral rules can, with the right mental effort, yield indisputable universal laws. Locke offers an example of how this might work, by analyzing the moral proposition Where there is no property, there is no injustice. In order to see the demonstrable certainty of this claim, we have to examine the composite ideas and how those agree or disagree with one anothe
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    The ideas of conformity to law and doing as one pleases cannot logically agree.
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit