Imagen de Google Jackets

Liberty in the modern state

Por: Tipo de material: TextoIdioma: en Editor: Salt Lake City, UT : Project Gutenberg, 2026Edición: First editionDescripción: 1 online resource : multiple file formatsTipo de contenido:
  • text
Tipo de medio:
  • computer
Tipo de soporte:
  • online resource
Tema(s): Clasificación LoC:
  • JC
Recursos en línea: Créditos de producción:
  • Sean – @parchmentglow
Resumen: Liberty in the modern state by Harold J. Laski is a treatise on political philosophy written in the early 20th century. It explores what liberty means in modern society, arguing that genuine freedom requires limits on political authority, equality of opportunity, democratic accountability, judicial safeguards, and—above all—freedom of thought and speech. The opening of the work defines liberty as the absence of restraints that block individuals from pursuing happiness in matters they deem significant, rejects the idea that freedom is found in obedience to law, and insists that uncontrolled power is fatal to liberty. It contends that equality complements liberty by organizing opportunities fairly, and that democracy, periodic choice of rulers, and an independent judiciary are essential safeguards against abuse—especially amid growing delegated legislation and administrative discretion. Laski values bills of rights but warns they work only when citizens are vigilant; freedom ultimately survives by courage to resist, even through civil disobedience when conscience demands. He urges decentralization—both locally and within professions and industries—to spread power, foster consent, and spur creative self-government. Law, he argues, is not only command but appeal, winning authority by consent; when it compels against conscience, it invades personality. Turning to “freedom of the mind,” he defends unfettered speech and association as goods in themselves, showing censorship to be counterproductive and unworkable (critiquing bans for “obscenity” or “blasphemy,” and noting perverse effects and inconsistent standards), while allowing only narrow limits for personal defamation tied to public interest. He then begins the political free-speech question, distinguishing written from spoken advocacy, and argues that even revolutionary writings should not be suppressed. (This is an automatically generated summary.)
Etiquetas de esta biblioteca: No hay etiquetas de esta biblioteca para este título. Ingresar para agregar etiquetas.
Valoración
    Valoración media: 0.0 (0 votos)
No hay ítems correspondientes a este registro

Release date is 2026-03-11

Sean – @parchmentglow

Liberty in the modern state by Harold J. Laski is a treatise on political philosophy written in the early 20th century. It explores what liberty means in modern society, arguing that genuine freedom requires limits on political authority, equality of opportunity, democratic accountability, judicial safeguards, and—above all—freedom of thought and speech.

The opening of the work defines liberty as the absence of restraints that block individuals from pursuing happiness in matters they deem significant, rejects the idea that freedom is found in obedience to law, and insists that uncontrolled power is fatal to liberty. It contends that equality complements liberty by organizing opportunities fairly, and that democracy, periodic choice of rulers, and an independent judiciary are essential safeguards against abuse—especially amid growing delegated legislation and administrative discretion. Laski values bills of rights but warns they work only when citizens are vigilant; freedom ultimately survives by courage to resist, even through civil disobedience when conscience demands. He urges decentralization—both locally and within professions and industries—to spread power, foster consent, and spur creative self-government. Law, he argues, is not only command but appeal, winning authority by consent; when it compels against conscience, it invades personality. Turning to “freedom of the mind,” he defends unfettered speech and association as goods in themselves, showing censorship to be counterproductive and unworkable (critiquing bans for “obscenity” or “blasphemy,” and noting perverse effects and inconsistent standards), while allowing only narrow limits for personal defamation tied to public interest. He then begins the political free-speech question, distinguishing written from spoken advocacy, and argues that even revolutionary writings should not be suppressed. (This is an automatically generated summary.)

Originally published: New York: Harper & Brothers, 1930

No hay comentarios en este titulo.

para colocar un comentario.