What Does Freedom Mean?

[PoliTalker]

There seems to be an attitude that freedom means you can do anything you want, no matter how it affects others.

If that is freedom, is it incumbent upon a society to impose restrictions to freedom?

Since society is organized by government, should the government decide how much freedom individuals should be allowed to have?

Under what criteria?

Should freedom be unencumbered by responsibilities?

 

[Jack]

Supporting Trumptopians and their 'Right to Die'.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jack,

Supporting Trumptopians and their 'Right to Die'.

If you look at the numbers the political balance in the USA is unlikely to be significantly affected by COVID deaths.

The 2020 election resulted in a difference of ten times the number of votes of all the people who have died of COVID.

In the beginning of the pandemic, more liberals were dying of COVID. But still, Trump lost.

Recently, more conservatives have been dying of COVID.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There seems to be an attitude that freedom means you can do anything you want, no matter how it affects others.

If that is freedom, is it incumbent upon a society to impose restrictions to freedom?

Since society is organized by government, should the government decide how much freedom individuals should be allowed to have?

Under what criteria?

Should freedom be unencumbered by responsibilities?

Freedom is the right to swing your fist short of hitting anyone or anyone’s property.

Freedom is the ability to choose the course of one’s life. The less options a person has, the less freedom to choose and, therefore, the less freedom they have.

Freedom isn’t free college or free anything. It’s the freedom to be treated equally and fairly. The best students get into college, the best racers qualify for the final race and the best people get ahead. Freedom to win and freedom to lose in fair competition.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Freedom is the right to swing your fist short of hitting anyone or anyone’s property.

Freedom is the ability to choose the course of one’s life. The less options a person has, the less freedom to choose and, therefore, the less freedom they have.

Freedom isn’t free college or free anything. It’s the freedom to be treated equally and fairly. The best students get into college, the best racers qualify for the final race and the best people get ahead. Freedom to win and freedom to lose in fair competition.

Should freedom in the USA include the freedom to endanger others?

Is the government within it's rights to determine how much freedom is allowed?

Some people can spend years driving drunk. Never have an accident. Never get a ticket. You know the type. The bar fly type. Gotta drink a bunch every night. Build up a tolerance. Very careful driving home. They think they're OK. A breathalyzer says different.

They never hurt anybody, but if they get stopped in a random driver impairment checkpoint they would get a ticket, or even be hauled off to jail.

Is their freedom being unreasonably restricted by government?

We know what MADD would say.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Should freedom in the USA include the freedom to endanger others?

Is the government within it's rights to determine how much freedom is allowed?

Some people can spend years driving drunk. Never have an accident. Never get a ticket. You know the type. The bar fly type. Gotta drink a bunch every night. Build up a tolerance. Very careful driving home. They think they're OK. A breathalyzer says different.

They never hurt anybody, but if they get stopped in a random driver impairment checkpoint they would get a ticket, or even be hauled off to jail.

Is their freedom being unreasonably restricted by government?

We know what MADD would say.

A debatable point. If someone has ALS and wants to commit suicide, should they have the freedom to do so? What if their suicide “hurts their family”? What if an unmarried woman wants an abortion and the father claims he’s “hurt” by the decision? Does that hurt or endanger others? Do you really want to send people to prison for refusing a vaccination?….or do you just want to hold them down while they are forcibly injected? To answer my own questions: yes on the right to suicide, yes on the right to one’s own body which goes from abortion to vaccinations or any other invasive procedure forced against a person’s will. See the forced feeding of Alice Paul.

It depends upon the government and the laws established by citizens. Let’s not forget that what the Germans did to their own people was “legal” even if unethical, immoral and other nations disagreed.

IMO, the purpose of government is laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. Per those documents the answer to the second question is a qualified yes (or qualified no if you prefer). The purpose of government is to protect the freedoms of all and resolve disputes of conflicting rights. Our own government proves that the longer it exists, the more rights it restricts. I’m against this but have no solution other than the highly impractical solution of nuking it from orbit and starting over.

As for DUI, driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Even if it were a right, like robbing a house, it’s a person who has a disregard for the rights of others. Such cases should be adjudicated case-by-case. In general, they should be restricted from driving.

Note that a person who has AIDS and has unprotected sex with another can go to jail for reckless disregard for others. Murder if he infects and kills someone. I see spreading any form of disease out of negligence or intent to fall under the same rules.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

IMO, the purpose of government is laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. Per those documents the answer to the second question is a qualified yes (or qualified no if you prefer). The purpose of government is to protect the freedoms of all and resolve disputes of conflicting rights. Our own government proves that the longer it exists, the more rights it restricts. I’m against this but have no solution other than the highly impractical solution of nuking it from orbit and starting over.

As for DUI, driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Even if it were a right, like robbing a house, it’s a person who has a disregard for the rights of others. Such cases should be adjudicated case-by-case. In general, they should be restricted from driving.

Note that a person who has AIDS and has unprotected sex with another can go to jail for reckless disregard for others. Murder if he infects and kills someone. I see spreading any form of disease out of negligence or intent to fall under the same rules.

Your analogy about swinging your fist is often used and is a good one. To compare to vaccines during a deadly pandemic, I would say that no, we don't want the govt. to FORCE ppl to get vaxxed against their will. But if they remain unvaxxed, and thus a danger to those who cannot receive the innoculations, then they must be excluded from others. Whether it's their kids not being allowed to go to school, not being able to shop or eat out or attend sporting events or concerts -- the people have a right to remain free of possible danger posed by the unvaxxed and contagious. If a condition of employment is get vaxxed or get tested frequently at your own expense to keep your job, I'm good with that.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

IMO, the purpose of government is laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. Per those documents the answer to the second question is a qualified yes (or qualified no if you prefer). The purpose of government is to protect the freedoms of all and resolve disputes of conflicting rights. Our own government proves that the longer it exists, the more rights it restricts. I’m against this but have no solution other than the highly impractical solution of nuking it from orbit and starting over.

As for DUI, driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Even if it were a right, like robbing a house, it’s a person who has a disregard for the rights of others. Such cases should be adjudicated case-by-case. In general, they should be restricted from driving.

Note that a person who has AIDS and has unprotected sex with another can go to jail for reckless disregard for others. Murder if he infects and kills someone. I see spreading any form of disease out of negligence or intent to fall under the same rules.

Your analogy about swinging your fist is often used and is a good one. To compare to vaccines during a deadly pandemic, I would say that no, we don't want the govt. to FORCE ppl to get vaxxed against their will. But if they remain unvaxxed, and thus a danger to those who cannot receive the innoculations, then they must be excluded from others. Whether it's their kids not being allowed to go to school, not being able to shop or eat out or attend sporting events or concerts -- the people have a right to remain free of possible danger posed by the unvaxxed and contagious. If a condition of employment is get vaxxed or get tested frequently at your own expense to keep your job, I'm good with that.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

With respect to a society and its government freedom should be viewed as a maximizing of individual choice and right to do what the hell the individual wants to do without interference. Of course, any society and government has to impose limits on freedom to make things work, but the overarching maxim should always be to maximize freedom, not limit it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

With respect to a society and its government freedom should be viewed as a maximizing of individual choice and right to do what the hell the individual wants to do without interference. Of course, any society and government has to impose limits on freedom to make things work, but the overarching maxim should always be to maximize freedom, not limit it.

Agreed. Unfortunately, both major political parties seem more interested in empowering themselves and their party than Americans and our nation.

 

[BattleofHodow]

Freedom is the right to swing your fist short of hitting anyone or anyone’s property.

Freedom is the ability to choose the course of one’s life. The less options a person has, the less freedom to choose and, therefore, the less freedom they have.

Freedom isn’t free college or free anything. It’s the freedom to be treated equally and fairly. The best students get into college, the best racers qualify for the final race and the best people get ahead. Freedom to win and freedom to lose in fair competition.

A society of no freebies & choices.

Gee, expect Blacks & Latinos to fall further behind the curve.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Your analogy about swinging your fist is often used and is a good one. To compare to vaccines during a deadly pandemic, I would say that no, we don't want the govt. to FORCE ppl to get vaxxed against their will. But if they remain unvaxxed, and thus a danger to those who cannot receive the innoculations, then they must be excluded from others. Whether it's their kids not being allowed to go to school, not being able to shop or eat out or attend sporting events or concerts -- the people have a right to remain free of possible danger posed by the unvaxxed and contagious. If a condition of employment is get vaxxed or get tested frequently at your own expense to keep your job, I'm good with that.

Thanks. Agreed that people who intentionally or negligently endanger others are intentionally or negligently violating the rights of others and should be restricted until the situation can be adjudicated. I’m a firm believer in a person’s home is their “castle”. That doesn’t give them the right to blow up the entire neighborhood, drive recklessly down the streets or spread disease.

 

[BattleofHodow]

With respect to a society and its government freedom should be viewed as a maximizing of individual choice and right to do what the hell the individual wants to do without interference. Of course, any society and government has to impose limits on freedom to make things work, but the overarching maxim should always be to maximize freedom, not limit it.

Lol, freedom.means degenerate values.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Lol, freedom.means degenerate values.

It can, and that's everyone's right in a free society so long as those values don't impinge on other's freedoms or on society as a whole.

 

[BattleofHodow]

It can, and that's everyone's right in a free society so long as those values don't impinge on other's freedoms or on society as a whole.

Lol.

Muh freedom to abortion murder,
Muh freedom to spread Covid- 19 by being unvaccinated & maskless,
Muh freedom to spread HIV/ AIDS
Muh freedom to hire illegal immigrants
Muh freedom outsource to hostile China.
Muh freedom to hire Islamist refugees.
Muh freedom to do illicit drugs & go to the ER.
Muh freedom to sell illicit drugs.
Muh freedom to litter the planet with garbage.
Muh freedom to excessively pollute.
Muh freedom to deforestation without renewal.
Muh freedom to not pay taxes for a civilization.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Lol.

Muh freedom to abortion murder,

And freedom as a society to ban abortion as a practice.

Muh freedom to spread Covid- 19 by being unvaccinated & maskless,

Since the whole idea of being masked and having been vaccinated is to prevent you from catching Chinese Disease, it's a wash. Let those who choose to run the risks do so--you are supposedly protected.

Muh freedom to spread HIV/ AIDS

Wrong. This is a clear case of where society needs limits on social interaction with consequences.

Muh freedom to hire illegal immigrants

They're called "illegal" for a reason. Those hiring them are not doing so legally.

Muh freedom outsource to hostile China.

Yep.

Muh freedom to hire Islamist refugees.

Yep.

Muh freedom to do illicit drugs & go to the ER.

So long as you can pay the bill, have at it! If you can't there should be serious consequences.

Muh freedom to sell illicit drugs.

If they're deemed by society as "illicit" (eg., illegal), then no you don't have that freedom.

Muh freedom to litter the planet with garbage.

Again, if society deems this illegal then no, you can do that.

Muh freedom to excessively pollute.

Same as with littering.

Muh freedom to deforestation without renewal.

If you own the property, and there are no restrictions on doing that that came with buying it, go for it.

Muh freedom to not pay taxes for a civilization.

Taxes are part of the cost of living in a society.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It can, and that's everyone's right in a free society so long as those values don't impinge on other's freedoms or on society as a whole.

Agreed. The caveat being adults with the ability to determine right and wrong. Minors and those at risk of abuse should be protected.

Remember this case?: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...etative-states-rare-not-unprecedented-n957611

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And freedom as a society to ban abortion as a practice.



Since the whole idea of being masked and having been vaccinated is to prevent you from catching Chinese Disease, it's a wash. Let those who choose to run the risks do so--you are supposedly protected.

Wrong. This is a clear case of where society needs limits on social interaction with consequences.



They're called "illegal" for a reason. Those hiring them are not doing so legally.



Yep.



Yep.


So long as you can pay the bill, have at it! If you can't there should be serious consequences.



If they're deemed by society as "illicit" (eg., illegal), then no you don't have that freedom.



Again, if society deems this illegal then no, you can do that.



Same as with littering.


If you own the property, and there are no restrictions on doing that that came with buying it, go for it.



Taxes are part of the cost of living in a society.

Why do you think pregnancy should be a group decision by “society”?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch,

A debatable point. If someone has ALS and wants to commit suicide, should they have the freedom to do so? What if their suicide “hurts their family”? What if an unmarried woman wants an abortion and the father claims he’s “hurt” by the decision? Does that hurt or endanger others? Do you really want to send people to prison for refusing a vaccination?….or do you just want to hold them down while they are forcibly injected? To answer my own questions: yes on the right to suicide, yes on the right to one’s own body which goes from abortion to vaccinations or any other invasive procedure forced against a person’s will. See the forced feeding of Alice Paul.

It depends upon the government and the laws established by citizens. Let’s not forget that what the Germans did to their own people was “legal” even if unethical, immoral and other nations disagreed.

IMO, the purpose of government is laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. Per those documents the answer to the second question is a qualified yes (or qualified no if you prefer). The purpose of government is to protect the freedoms of all and resolve disputes of conflicting rights. Our own government proves that the longer it exists, the more rights it restricts. I’m against this but have no solution other than the highly impractical solution of nuking it from orbit and starting over.

As for DUI, driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Even if it were a right, like robbing a house, it’s a person who has a disregard for the rights of others. Such cases should be adjudicated case-by-case. In general, they should be restricted from driving.

Note that a person who has AIDS and has unprotected sex with another can go to jail for reckless disregard for others. Murder if he infects and kills someone. I see spreading any form of disease out of negligence or intent to fall under the same rules.

It is only logical that the longer any government exists, the more laws it will create. This is to be expected and is not a reason for revolt. The world constantly grows more complex, and the ways for one individual to harm another become greater in number, requiring more laws to cover more possibilities.

This is just as logical as is the fact that as time progresses, as population grows, as technology advances, the government must become larger to deal with the complexities of society.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

With respect to a society and its government freedom should be viewed as a maximizing of individual choice and right to do what the hell the individual wants to do without interference. Of course, any society and government has to impose limits on freedom to make things work, but the overarching maxim should always be to maximize freedom, not limit it.

I completely agree, but I also recognize that logically, as time progresses, government must become larger, laws must become more numerous, and freedom must become more limited. It is for the good of society.

In 1900, everyone had the freedom to create their own radio and send out all the signals they desired. Everyone also had the right to build their own airplane and fly it wherever they pleased.

Neither of those things is allowed today, and for very good reason.