3 ms·
> Even by whack-job libertarian standards, nobody should be free to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of others. People have very different views on where
by wolfgke 8y ago
> Even by whack-job libertarian standards, nobody should be free to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of others.
People have very different views on where the personal boundaries of the freedom of each individual are.
- braythwayt 8y agoThat is a content-free observation. People have very different ideas of whether the earth is flat, too. That doesn't mean that there aren't consensus' formed. That doesn't mean that some views aren't so fringe as to be ridiculed by all and sundry. The freedom to burn down somebody else's property or instigate violence of any other sort is not a "freedom" to be given the same weight as the freedom to speak one's opinion, for example.
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoWho thinks that openly soliciting a destructive crime should be protected speech?
- basementcat 8y agoPlanners of the Boston Tea Party.
- braythwayt 8y agoSpeaking as someone who leans towards social activism, this is an important conversation to have. I believe society needs guardrails of all kinds. I don't believe, for example, that it should be legal for you and a few friends to drive onto the expressway in the morning and park your cars, blocking all traffic. But what if you want to protest something? Sometimes, the state hems you in, such that there is no legal way to effect change. For example, requiring a parade permit to march, and then denying it to some parties while granting it to others. That is easy, you just declare that parade permits shall not be granted for illegal purposes, and now nobody can march for marijuana legalization, or a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. I don't think there is a neat way to set up laws so that everything always "just works." At some point, activism is going to require defiance. That's what happened with the Tea Party. But I don't think allowing people to dump goods in the harbour at will would make democracy better.
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoI don't think even they would argue that you should have the legal right to smash up any business that annoys you in any way.
- ben_w 8y agoIf you believe that people should be free to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of others, on what basis can you object to imprisonment or fines?
- wolfgke 8y agoMy argument is that it is hard to find an "objective" criterion on what is "interference with the peaceful enjoyment of others".