I set out to define for myself the term civil liberty and in doing so stumbled upon an apparent paradox. The word liberty is generally defined as a state of freedom, derived from the Latin word liber meaning free. The word civil stems from the Latin word civitas and implies citizenship or a state. Here is the paradox, in this term civil liberty held so sacred by lovers of liberty hides a kernel of control. Using this term implies citizenship and thereby a state or collective. This term so often used by those who believe that freedom is given by natural law and inherent in all things corrupts so subtly that even a self proclaimed anarchist will demand them without thought of the implication of governance embedded therein. One could argue that by civil is meant polite, I would argue that freedom need not be polite and that the term is used more often in relation to legal authority rather than the violation of etiquette. Often the term civil liberty is used in the possessive i.e. my civil liberties. I suggest that those who use the term in this way acquiesce to the necessity of the state or the collective as the source or granter of the liberty. Liberty need not be granted from the state nor is etiquette a necessity when acting in defence of it therefore i say the only legitimate use of the term civil liberties is in describing the privileges given to an organization by those who agree to be governed. in other words civil liberties are the limitation imposed on the state by those who give the state their consent. Demand liberty for yourself, grant civil liberties to those who govern if you agree to be governed.
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 03:47:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015