"Every law is an evil, for every law is an infraction of liberty."

[Neoplatonist]

--Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Legislation, 1802

If Jeremy was correct, then the Patriot Act is certainly the epitome of evil, for it infringes on our liberties more than any other laws.

I agree with Jeremy. Do you agree, or disagree?

[Beetwasher]

1. I'm Not That Hardcore

I think that's an oversimplification. I have problems with labels like "evil" to begin with...

[Neoplatonist]

2. I agree with you--to a point

I think some laws are necessary, but infringing on personal liberty is where I agree with Jeremy. I've read the Patriot Act--it's terrible legislation.

[Beetwasher]

6. Indeed

The PA is the worst piece of legislation to come along in a very, very long time. You will be hard pressed to find anyone on this site who would disagree with that view!

BTW, welcome!

[RoyGBiv]

9. Context

It is an oversimplification because it's taken out of context.

Bentham was setting up the formula to his hedonistic calculus, which he based in part on the simplistic dichotomy of pleasure vs. pain, although not necessarily in a totally literal sense since this is not limited to physical sensation. Anything that promotes pleasure is good. Anything that promotes pain is bad. Laws promote pain because they subtract from unfettered liberty. Liberty promotes pleasure. But, since one person's pleasure is another's pain, we have to have laws to regulate this. Thus, the calculus.

I may not have that totally right. It's been awhile since I briefly studied Bentham as a part of a political science course. What I remember is that I found his logic a bit hard to follow because it can end up being circular. I find value in his general philosophy, which is that laws should have a utilitarian purpose, but this can be taken to absurd extremes.

On Edit: The point I originally intended to make before I got sidetracked is that Bentham wasn't an anarchist, which is what the quote seems to suggest. He was merely trying to apply a reasonable philosophy that countered the excesses of events like the French Revolution, but that also adopted some of the more noble principles with regard to maximizing liberty.

[Beetwasher]

13. Yeah, I Figured

it might have made more sense in context. The quote just seemed a bit TOO absolute. Not very familiar w/ Bentham's work in general so I couldn't be sure.

[Neoplatonist]

16. I had no idea what context it was in...LOL

Actually, I got the original quote by Jeremy Bentham from Irving M. Copi's Introduction to Symbolic Logic, ninth Edition. Copi used it as an example of deriving a truthful conclusion from a truthful premise...believe it or not.

It now seems to me after having read your description of Bentham that Copi took it completely out of context, then I took it out of context even further. LMAO.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is this: the Patriot Act is nefarious. Period. Call it what you will, I call it "nefarious".

All the points you folks posted are very insightful, to say the least. Thanks!

[progressiveBadger]

3. Daniel Quinn

brings up some pretty interesting ideas along these lines in his books. I think the problem that we face today is that we think that these laws fix our ills. That when there is a problem with our culture or society, we can create a law to "take care of the problem." Instead, why don't we fix the source of the problem? Instead of telling your kid, "don't do drugs otherwise you will be grounded", give them the reasons why you don't want them to do drugs. I guess it is just human nature to assume that the people you are "in charge of" can't think for themselves or in the same terms as you do.

[Kanary]

4. Chop down those evil red traffic lights!

For every red light, it means that people with a green light get to go.

There are laws that PROTECT freedom.

Basic truth.

Kanary

[Heyo]

5. That quote is not exactly true...

Some laws give more freedom than they take away... for example, giving you the freedom to walk out of your house without being robbed.....

(sure, It takes away someone's right to rob you, but it's a sacrifice that has to be made) :9

Heyo

[rogerashton]

7. Source?

I searched

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION

at

http://www.constitution.org/jb/pml.txt

and could not find it.

[FlaGranny]

8. There is no such thing as true freedom.

There are always constraints of one kind or another. If there were pure freedom, it wouldn't last long, because folks would get so mad at each other, they'd probably kill each other. To be totally free would infringe upon the freedom of others

[markses]

10. The warrant is bizarre

The warrant - or underlying assumption - for the claim is as follows:

Every infraction of liberty is an evil.

We must ask, then, what is liberty? Can liberty even be defined positively without "infractions" or limitations on action? What is an "infraction"? For instance, is gravity an evil, because gravity is an "infraction" on liberty? I cannot fly, therefore gravity (as a force) limits my capacity for action: Is it therefore an evil? What about other general phyical limitations? How about a law that prevents me from killing other human beings? Don't these necessarily limit my capacity for action? Or would we define liberty up to the liberty of another? That would, of course, be a specific limitation of action: liberty is a specific kind of a general capacity for action. But then we have the assumption that one can act in such a way that those acts don't affect others. Is this a reasonable assumption? Is it one that reflects or corresponds to practice? What kinds of effects on others are we talking about? Direct effects (I hit you)? Indirect effects (my use of resources limits your use of resources)? Indirect effects in time (the effects of my actions on future generations)? Indirect effects in extension (the effects of my actions on those who are not in proximity to me)?

We are only beginning to unpack the syllogism (or really, the enthymeme) here. I haven't even tried to discuss the status of "evil," given its traditional meaning or the meaning it takes up in Bentham's utilitarian system. I'm not even sure we can anything about Bentham's claim until further questions about it are clarified.

[RoyGBiv]

11. Patriot Act

I do agree that the Patriot Act is bad, wrong, and in dire need of being the fuel to a nice bonfire set to purge us such draconian laws.

[EV1Ltimm]

12. i don't have that much faith in my fellow man.

if indeed laws are an infraction on our liberties, then in order for us to truly be free, we must abolish all laws and more-or-less embrace anarchy. i don't think some people can handle absolute freedom.

but nonetheless, the patriot act, when it was first introduced, was bizarre. People who were opposed to anything that would even minorly infract on our freedoms were welcoming the patriot act with open arms.

[indepat]

14. For things we don't have the liberty to do, such as kill, there must be

laws. Certainly any unnecessary infringement of liberty ala the Patriot Act, more designed to spy on, harass, and/or punish political opponents IMHO, is evil on its face IMNSHO.

[sendero]

15. That's great...

.... so it should not be illegal for me to club morons like that senseless. Oh, too late.