3 ms·
> In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink? In the sense that the state will not use the threat of force in order to make them drin
by AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
> In what useful sense does an alcoholic have the freedom not to drink?
In the sense that the state will not use the threat of force in order to make them drink and in the sense that there will not be any danger to their health if they do not drink.
- anoncake 8y ago> In the sense that the state will not use the threat of force in order to make them drink That -- negative freedom -- is a useless concept. It does not matter whether you cannot choose freely because of coercion by the state or for other reasons. > and in the sense that there will not be any danger to their health if they do not drink. So you just refuted two potential reasons why alcoholics could not be free not to drink alcohol. They do not matter, because a third reason applies: That they are addicted to it.