In chapter 8, Ripstein discusses that for there to be a "regime of equal private freedom," there must be a system in which a state can compel its citizens to do their part in creating and maintaing this condition. As Professor Hurley mentioned, Ripstein makes the case that private property without public roads takes away an individual's liberty to access the property. Public services, such as access to public roads, ensure people's individual rights and liberties. Ripstein writes that "the state is entitled to make people contribute, both positively and negatively, to their provision, and to regulate them based on a variety of considerations" (238). He is careful to say that this does not mean that the state can autonomously use force to get the cooperation of people. He writes that this mandatory cooperation does not require the assumption "about the state having any more general power to make life convenient" (238). The problem that comes up then is how to define "general power" and where to draw the line between the state acting on behalf of the people to ensure individual liberty, such as the right to property, and the state taking away an individual's liberty for the sake of the public interest. People disagree on whether the government should set strict rules regarding curfew or legalize the use of recreational drugs. One can make the case that both these examples limit an individual's freedom; however they can also be used to argue that the state is acting to protect the interests of the public.
Although I agree that public authority that can mandate public cooperation through police power is necessary for exercise of other important rights, it is difficult for a state to fairly discern, in a society of people with diverse backgrounds and beliefs, to set laws to protect the interests of the general public and to ensure that peoples' individual freedoms are not restricted through these laws. Examples that come to mind include the freedom of speech and and religion. We can all agree that these two freedoms should be guaranteed to people. However, at what point should the state intervene to restrict these freedoms on the grounds that it is taking away the freedoms of others ?
I think that Ripstein does draw a clear line on the extent of the "general power." He writes that, "the state must create and sustain the systematic preconditions both of the exercise of private freedom and of the conditions of its ability to protect them" (238). In this way, he argues that the state only has the power to act to ensure that people can fully participate in society. That is, they have the ability to exercise their freedom in a way to pursue their own ends without undue burdens placed upon them by the state.
ReplyDeleteHis view of the general public seems a bit different than your characterization. Rather than an entity with distinct interests, it merely has the "omnilateral will" to allow for persons to "interact on terms of equal freedom" (14). In that way, it seems to exist to allow for maximal individual freedom, which I think should alleviate your concerns over an unduly coercive state.
Grace's post brings up an interesting question about Ripstein's account. Her last formulation, asking when the state can restrict certain freedoms, e.g. freedom of speech and religion, to defend the freedoms of others, suggests that liberty or freedom is freedom to do whatever one wants in pursuit of one's religious beliefs, for example, and that the state is "restricting" such freedoms to preserve the freedoms of others. But freedom, for Kant and Ripstein (and for us?), is freedom with respect to the equal individual freedom of others. If my exercise of my religion violates the freedom of others, is the state restricting my freedom when it limits my activities, or is the point that I am doing something that equal individual freedom does not permit? Is the state limiting my freedom, or my violation of the freedom of others, where the latter is not limiting my freedom, properly understood, at all?
ReplyDeleteOn a similar note, Ripstein's account made me consider the importance of freedom through security- both personal and national. In light of the recent Denmark shootings, I think it is important to remember the potentially widespread effects of disrespect. Although individuals should have the right to criticize openly and freely, freedom of speech does not negate one's responsibility to truly respect the freedoms of another (like the freedom of religion). Ripstein does not address this notion of freedom found within security; when individuals feel disrespected (harassed, verbally abused), can they act freely- or to their full potential? I think these questions are important parts of the application of both Ripstein's account and the idea of freedom within society overall.
ReplyDeleteOn a similar note, Ripstein's account made me consider the importance of freedom through security- both personal and national. In light of the recent Denmark shootings, I think it is important to remember the potentially widespread effects of disrespect. Although individuals should have the right to criticize openly and freely, freedom of speech does not negate one's responsibility to truly respect the freedoms of another (like the freedom of religion). Ripstein does not address this notion of freedom found within security; when individuals feel disrespected (harassed, verbally abused), can they act freely- or to their full potential? I think these questions are important parts of the application of both Ripstein's account and the idea of freedom within society overall.
ReplyDeleteI think page 241 answers your questions nicely.
ReplyDelete"The same right to independence both generates and limits the state's ability to balance interests: government may only engage in 'trading off safety for convenience,' or take account of 'the gain to the many outweighing the conveniences to the few,' in ways that are consistent with each person's right of humanity to independence from being constrained by another's choice."
I would take this to mean:
Inflamatory speech is a no go.
Religions that are manifestly belligerent are a no go.
Ban drug use, because they (tend to) lead to degeneracy, and widespread degeneracy would affect others' independence.
Curfews are situational.
Thoughts on my conclusions?