| ... |
... |
@@ -1,14
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-I value morality. |
| 2 |
|
-To value any end, I must value the conditions necessary to will that end – independence is one of those conditions, since end-setting requires I be free from another’s control. Willing means I hold myself to be able to fulfill that end, which requires freedom. There can be no objection to deny another’s freedom since they possess the same right and that would deny my worth – resolving disputes via unilateral coercion is a contradiction. |
| 3 |
|
-Korsgaard: Christine M. Korsgaard “Taking the Law into Our Own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution” Oxford University Press. 2008 |
| 4 |
|
-Suppose we are…some lawful way. |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
-Thus we must have an omnilateral will since it’s a contradiction by willing a world where the will is denied or clashing without resolution. All claims are provisional until brought under public right – only reciprocal coercion is consistent with freedom. |
| 7 |
|
-Korsgaard 2: Christine M. Korsgaard “Taking the Law into Our Own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution” Oxford University Press. 2008 |
| 8 |
|
-Now, with respect..a civil constitution. (MPJ 6:256) |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
-The government can limit private speech – nuisances are a violation of the state’s obligation to provide public spaces. |
| 11 |
|
-Ripstein 09 Arthur Ripstein, “Force and Freedom”. Harvard University Press, 2009 //BWSWJ |
| 12 |
|
-Blocking a road…use public spaces. |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
-Thus the standard is consistency with the omnilateral will. |