4 ms·

I find many of these alleged philosophical gotchas evapourate with a simple rephrasing of the question. Consider this: "My neighbour's freedom to force their m

I find many of these alleged philosophical gotchas evapourate with a simple rephrasing of the question. Consider this: "My neighbour's freedom to force their music upon me interferes with my need for sleep." Or even, "My neighbour's freedom to pollute my private property interferes with my private enjoyment of it." Somehow it seems like an easier question to answer, now.

happytoexplain 6y ago
You didn't rephrase the question, you formed different questions with easier answers. I don't see how this causes the broader philosophical issue to "evaporate".
- dleslie 6y ago
  How are the questions fundamentally different? It's just different ways of describing the conflict between the need to sleep and the neighbour's loud music.
  - zmk5 6y ago
    Because the term freedom usually means freedom from something (government, corporations, etc.). However, the original article seems to confuse this with what is traditionally called liberty (the freedom to do as you please). Your restated question doesn't pick up on this, you are just stating how someones liberty to do as they please interferes with your ability to do as you please on your property in a simpler format. No one is being freed from the other.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      I can still adapt to that redefinition of freedom: "My neighbour's freedom from interference when forcing their music upon me interferes with my need for sleep." "My neighbour's freedom from interference when polluting my private property interferes with my private enjoyment of it." Easy-peasy.
      - zmk5 6y ago
        It really doesn't because your rephrasing elides the real question: "Does your neighbor have the liberty to play loud music around their neighbors" and the answer to that question in some states is "no, after a certain time." Freedom from something requires them to have power over you. Your neighbor really doesn't in the same way the government does, an invading foreign power, or, the way GNU argues it, the way corporations do with their software licensing and copyright.

happytoexplain 6y ago

You didn't rephrase the question, you formed different questions with easier answers. I don't see how this causes the broader philosophical issue to "evaporate".

dleslie 6y ago
How are the questions fundamentally different? It's just different ways of describing the conflict between the need to sleep and the neighbour's loud music.
- zmk5 6y ago
  Because the term freedom usually means freedom from something (government, corporations, etc.). However, the original article seems to confuse this with what is traditionally called liberty (the freedom to do as you please). Your restated question doesn't pick up on this, you are just stating how someones liberty to do as they please interferes with your ability to do as you please on your property in a simpler format. No one is being freed from the other.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    I can still adapt to that redefinition of freedom: "My neighbour's freedom from interference when forcing their music upon me interferes with my need for sleep." "My neighbour's freedom from interference when polluting my private property interferes with my private enjoyment of it." Easy-peasy.
    - zmk5 6y ago
      It really doesn't because your rephrasing elides the real question: "Does your neighbor have the liberty to play loud music around their neighbors" and the answer to that question in some states is "no, after a certain time." Freedom from something requires them to have power over you. Your neighbor really doesn't in the same way the government does, an invading foreign power, or, the way GNU argues it, the way corporations do with their software licensing and copyright.