# Does government hold the right to deny or disparage liberty? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493 "2009-10-03T22:05:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/1 "2009-10-03T22:05:02Z")
The Supreme Court announced it will hear a challenge to [Chicago’s gun ban.](http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=37153) It seems to me that the right to pursue and protect health and property is one retained by the people. Does government hold the right to construe law to deny or disparage liberty? Are governments instituted to secure these inalienable rights for all? peace rwjefferson power is not the same as right ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/2 "2009-10-03T22:33:52Z")
Yes, the government does. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/3 "2009-10-03T22:56:06Z")
I’m not sure if **Captain Amazing** is being sarcastic or not, but **rwjefferson** is sort of begging the question. To take the OP’s question at face value, it depends on what political philosophy you adhere to. The answer would be “yes” if you go by the classic treatise **Leviathan** , by Thomas Hobbes, in which Hobbes argued that all government by necessity infringes on each individual’s “right” to limitlessly pursue their self-interest, which would lead to a “war of all against all”. In Hobbes view, the basic social contract is to surrender one’s freedom to the state in exchange for protection from violent death at the hands of the lawless. The answer would be “no” according to the natural rights view espoused by the Enlightenment-era political philosophers who inspired the Founding Fathers and which largely underlies the Constitutions (state and federal) of the USA. In any case, the city of Chicago and/or the state of Illinois will argue that handgun bans aren’t “denying liberty”, but a reasonable and necessary measure to maintain public safety. Of course no government up to and including the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia _ever_ thinks it’s doing wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/4 "2009-10-03T23:05:25Z")
Outside of liberties that are guaranteed you by law, all other liberties are subject to being appropriated by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/5 "2009-10-03T23:10:11Z")
In any event, the Chicago case is significant because it will almost certainly raise the issue of the incorporation of the Second Amendment. That is, it will determine if it applies to state governments rather than just the federal government. I personally believe that it does, but legally it’s not a slam-dunk. Remember, before the practice was specifically banned by the Thirteenth Amendment, it was held to be within a state government’s purview to respect and uphold the institution of **chattel slavery** (!) The argument could be made that state governments retain a “state’s right” to regulate the bearing of arms to the point of effectively banning them. I personally believe that that would violate the spirit of the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court (not necessarily this one) has a long history of picking what outcome they consider desirable and then finding the justification afterwards. We’ll have to see. ETA: **Sage Rat** , that may be effectively how things work out in practice but it pretty much is contradicted by the letter of the Constitution. At bottom the whole question is a struggle between libertarian and authoritarian views of government, which is why cases endlessly come up before the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/6 "2009-10-03T23:10:41Z")
And a lovely addendum to that is that even the most basic liberties proclaimed in the Bill of Rights can be voted away. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/7 "2009-10-03T23:13:58Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > ETA: **Sage Rat** , that may be effectively how things work out in practice but it pretty much is contradicted by the letter of the Constitution. When they were writing the Constitution that may have been the intent. But at the end of the day the whole rest of the country went, “Nuh uh, you want us to sign that in, you’d better lay out some specific liberties that are guaranteed, because we don’t trust that shit.” So I’d say that in the debate between theory and reality, reality already won it the second that the Bill of Rights was drawn up. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/8 "2009-10-03T23:23:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > When they were writing the Constitution that may have been the intent. But at the end of the day the whole rest of the country went, “Nuh uh, you want us to sign that in, you’d better lay out some specific liberties that are guaranteed, because we don’t trust that shit.” So I’d say that in the debate between theory and reality, reality already won it the second that the Bill of Rights was drawn up. But one of the “specific liberties” was to explicitly say that all authority not granted the Federal government was retained by the states or the people. Granted that given such tortuous sophistries as the modern interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, it’s a good thing a Bill of Rights _was_ insisted upon, but it shouldn’t have had to be that way. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/9 "2009-10-04T00:11:08Z")
Literally everything the government does denies liberty to some degree. That’s what it means to have a group of people who get together and make decisions about your life. It varies in degree from a bagel breakfast among congressmen paid for by your tax dollars all the way to arresting people for the chemical they decide to put in their bodies. Unless you deny government altogether, the question is just where to draw the line. Is self-defense so essential a liberty as to be untouchable? Clearly not. There are plenty of things that could be done in the name of self-defense that people of goodwill of all political stripes find unacceptable. Is having a gun in the home for self-defense untouchable? Maybe it is. In a big, complex society, we have to draw difficult lines. And not just on this issue. We do it with drug laws, abortion laws, roving wiretaps, campaign finance, death penalty, tax rates, consumer regulation, environmental law, etc. Self-defense is one of the hundreds of important liberties in our lives that must be carefully balanced against everything else. And we would do that careful balancing more effectively, in my opinion, if we didn’t frame every issue as tyranny vs. liberty. Tyranny vs. liberty is an appropriate framework for discussions of things like whether or not we should have universal suffrage, an independent judiciary, or slavery. It is not the appropriate framework for discussing whether someone should be able to smoke pot for their cancer, get a third trimester abortion, carry a .45, or donate thousands to a political candidate. Not that bodily autonomy, self-defense, and free speech aren’t important - they are extremely important and worth fighting for - but the line between tyranny and liberty is not, I’m quite sure, somewhere between Alabama and California. It’s somewhere between Alabama and Iran (or California and Iran, depending on your perspective). And I think if we remember that, and discuss these issues by acknowledging the complexity involved and without shrouding ourselves in the Declaration of Independence every time someone disagrees, we would be better off. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/10 "2009-10-04T00:50:05Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > …Unless you deny government altogether, the question is just where to draw the line. > …Self-defense is one of the hundreds of important liberties in our lives that must be carefully balanced against everything else. Governments are instituted to secure the inalienable right of liberty equally for all. I draw the line at peaceful and well regulated pursuit of happiness. Carefully balanced is not the same as prohibition. Carefully balance means the same as well regulated. I draw the line at innocent until proven guilty. power is not the same as right peace rwj everything is a question of tyranny vs well regulated right ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/11 "2009-10-04T00:55:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Chicago’s legal team says most violent crimes in the city involve guns. Attorneys say the Second Amendment, **the right to bare arms** , does not directly regulate state and local governments. The city allows the possession of rifles and shotguns if they are properly registered. Ouch. I guess Chicago loves the _Naked Gun_ movies. In any case if possessions of guns is allowed, “gun ban” is a loaded term. (Nevermind describing gun regulations as ‘denying or disparaging liberty!’) If we’re going to have an actual discussion of Chicago gun laws, it would be great if somebody could _provide those laws_. What are the laws in Chicago, **rwjefferson**? ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/12 "2009-10-04T01:11:31Z")
You have to remember a few things First of all rights are never absolute. The best example is you have a right to free speech but no right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Through the years most of the rights and responsibilites of the federal government have been applied to the states through the 14th Amendment’s “due process clause.” The 2nd Amendement is one that has not. In additon due to the wording of the 21st Amendment certain additional rules apply to alcohol which would normally not have been covered. Now the Supreme Court recognizes that sometimes parts of the US Constitution conflict and when that happens it is the court that decides which right has priority. One of the posters mentioned the 10th Amendment > [@](#): > > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now that seems to be straightforward, but is it? For instance the Constitution delgates to the Federal system the right to regulate interstate commerce. That is a HUGE deal. What doens’t move interstate now-a-days? Pretty much everything does? The Supreme Court is basically a living Constitutional Convention in that it decides based on current thought what is correct. For istance at one time they tried to pass an amendment to regulate child labor. This didn’t pass, but it’s unthinkable today an amendmenmt would be needed for the feds to regulate child labor ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/13 "2009-10-04T01:27:48Z")
I don’t own a gun and (hopefully) never will. The Second Amendment is so jaw-droppingly clear that I’m at a loss at how people can be confused. It’s like someone reciting “Little Miss Muffet” and having a 400 year debate on whether curds and whey are legal for consumption. Guns should be legal without restriction. You all will think I’m crazy but I’m still unclear why its illegal to purchase a weaponized flamethrower and accelerant or a tommy gun - are these weapons an arm or not? The way we classify what is an “arm” is entirely arbitrary. Either come up with a definition of an “arm” or relax it to encompass all armaments. The same people who have a conservative reading of the Second Amendment likely have a frank interpretation of Fourteenth Amendment. What scares me is that while we’re willing to gut the 2nd, what happens when the 13th or 14th goes up to the chopping block? It’s a dangerous precedent. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/14 "2009-10-04T01:27:49Z")
> [@rwjefferson](#): > > Governments are instituted to secure the inalienable right of liberty equally for all. No, they aren’t. Governments are instituted to give one entity a monopoly on force in order to eliminate the State of Nature and allow most individuals to live an ordered existence. Maybe you don’t accept that, but unless you want to be pigheaded and/or disingenuous, you must accept that your political philosophy is not inherently superior to my political philosophy. Ergo, these bald statements by fiat don’t serve your case. They offer no support to those who already agree, and no persuasive force to those who do not. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/15 "2009-10-04T01:43:12Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > I don’t own a gun and (hopefully) never will. The Second Amendment is so jaw-droppingly clear that I’m at a loss at how people can be confused. It’s like someone reciting “Little Miss Muffet” and having a 400 year debate on whether curds and whey are legal for consumption. Guns should be legal without restriction. You all will think I’m crazy but I’m still unclear why its illegal to purchase a weaponized flamethrower and accelerant or a tommy gun - are these weapons an arm or not? The way we classify what is an “arm” is entirely arbitrary. Either come up with a definition of an “arm” or relax it to encompass all armaments. Actually, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” can easily be interpreted to mean that only National Guard members have the right to own arms. The courts haven’t chosen to see it that way, but yes it can be read more than one way. As for why flamethrowers and such aren’t included; it’s part the practical matter of how much damage such weapons would do. And, I expect it’s the fact that actually allowing private ownership of everything labeled an “arm” would be the death knell of the gun rights movement; a new Amendment greatly restricting weapon ownership would be passed quite quickly, written by the light of our burning cities. > [@Honesty](#): > > The same people who have a conservative reading of the Second Amendment likely have a frank interpretation of Fourteenth Amendment. What scares me is that while we’re willing to gut the 2nd, what happens when the 13th or 14th goes up to the chopping block? It’s a dangerous precedent. The Second Amendment unfortunately is nowhere near gutted. And getting rid of it might focus some attention of the rights that actually matter; in modern America the main function of the Second Amendment is to distract people while they are screwed over. Many people are too busy clutching useless guns to worry about the other Amendments. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/16 "2009-10-04T01:54:05Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > No, they aren’t I stand corrected. Just governments are instituted to secure the inalienable rights of liberty and justice for all. All are innocent until proven guilty. Power is not the same as right. Tyranny of law or majority is not necessarily the same as liberty and justice for all. rwj ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/17 "2009-10-04T01:57:49Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If we’re going to have an actual discussion of Chicago gun laws, it would be great if somebody could _provide those laws_. What are the laws in Chicago, **rwjefferson**? Some quick 'n dirty info from Wikipedia: > [@Wikipedia](#): > > To possess or purchase firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the state police.[68] Generally an FOID will be granted unless the applicant has been convicted of a felony or an act of domestic violence, is the subject of an order of protection, has been convicted of assault or battery or been a patient in a mental institution within the last five years, or has been adjudicated as a mental defective.[69] There are additional requirements for applicants under the age of 21.[70] > > There is no state preemption of firearm laws. Some municipalities, most notably Chicago, require that all firearms be registered with the local police department.[71] Chicago does not allow the registration of handguns, which has the effect of outlawing their possession, unless they were grandfathered in by being registered before April 16, 1982.[72][73] The Chicago suburb of Oak Park also has banned handguns,[74] and Highland Park bars handgun possession unless the resident has obtained a permit from the police. . Apparently that’s _possession_, as in even within your private residence, not just public carry. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/18 "2009-10-04T03:59:52Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > And a lovely addendum to that is that even the most basic liberties proclaimed in the Bill of Rights can be voted away. That would be only fitting, inasmuch as that is how they were established in the first place. Where did you think the Bill of Rights came from, Mount Sinai? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/19 "2009-10-04T04:29:47Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > But one of the “specific liberties” was to explicitly say that all authority not granted the Federal government was retained by the states or the people. Yes, but all that means is that anything which isn’t _yet_ covered by law is assumed to be legal. It doesn’t and hasn’t ever removed the right for the government to create a law which controlled that aspect of human behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493/20 "2009-10-04T04:40:41Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Yes, but all that means is that anything which isn’t _yet_ covered by law is assumed to be legal. It doesn’t and hasn’t ever removed the right for the government to create a law which controlled that aspect of human behavior. Unless the United States does things differently, removing the “right” for the government to create laws outside of those permitted is the whole point of having a Constitution. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-government-hold-the-right-to-deny-or-disparage-liberty/512493.md?page=2)