One man's freedom

 Stops short at the point where it would injure another man's freedom.

John Locke

Thus is the prevailing sentiment or viewpoint expressed by one who has been recognised in history as the father of classical liberalism and an expert on the principle of social freedom and Liberty...The very man who perhaps had the most fundamental and profound influence on the father of our nation's current Constitution ( The Federal/Corporate document ) James Madison,...Locks position concerning Liberty is as thus...That...'' Liberty in its entirety is circumscribe '..Meaning he maintained that Liberty within society is not absolute that it was effectively subject to restraint and limitations etc...He sets out to show how much Liberty men can have by pointing out the limits that must be set on men's Liberty.

Was Madison an Original Thinker?

'' One man's freedom stops short at the point where it would injure another mans freedom. Hence freedom in political society is freedom under law...In that the great advantage however of being quite clear about the limitation of freedom..Is that it enables men to see exactly how much freedom they can have. ''
John Locke

What effectively locke is making reference to when addressing the case that freedom and liberty must be restricted and limited in relation to the injuring of one person by another etc....Does not in any way concern one's Civic freedoms or Liberties..But rather the restraining or limiting the ability of action by criminal elements within a society from infringing upon the rights and to inflict grievous harm upon the person and property of their fellow man...After all..In such a society which Lock speaks..Who or which entity is bestowed with the power and authority to effectively decide as to what is constituted as restrictive or limited freedom and liberty???...The state no doubt!....So then...How do the citizens of a society who their freedoms and liberties are restricted and limited by the state....Effectively defend themselves against the overstepping and the abusing by that body??....Ultimately my argument is thus.... Man's Civic or political and Social freedom is his natural God given inalienable right and therefore it ( CANNOT! ) under any circumstance be limited or restricted by any single body...Rather it be the state or any other entity, as it is not a privilege but rather it is one's right......

The laws which Locke refers. Were not put into place so to establish or determine the limitation or restriction of the rights mentioned....But rather were instilled so to safeguard and protect those Civic rights and also the person and property of citizens from those criminal elements within society who may wish to injure or harm their fellow man...However...As I have pointed out....These limitations or restrictions are by no means applicable when concerning the Civic freedoms of citizens within society....Therefore I must conclude that....yes indeed..Mans freedom and Liberties are in affect ( Absolute )..Therefore...When we are faced with one who wishes to either infringe upon the freedoms and rights of his fellow man..Or to inflict grievous harm upon his or her person or property...In which case this is a Criminal matter which entails the limiting or retraining of criminals, and NOT! one which validates the restricting or limiting the Civic freedoms of citizens....Not understanding the deference between these two scenarios...Is very dangerous for the members or the citizenry of any free society, and thus may have or pose dire consequences.


Darius Radmanesh