6 ms·
Because the term freedom usually means freedom from something (government, corporations, etc.). However, the original article seems to confuse this with what is
by 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 agoI 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 agoIt 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.