4 ms·
> view laws requiring their use as impinging on their freedom. They are impinging on our freedom. "You must do something" directly means you're less free, ther
by tomp 5y ago
> view laws requiring their use as impinging on their freedom.
They are impinging on our freedom. "You must do something" directly means you're less free, there can be no debate about this. The only debate to be had, is whether someone else (the government, the experts, ...) is allowed to force you to do things "in your best interest". There are ideological and practical (e.g. "power invites abuse" and "experts are stupid" as exemplified by the current pandemic) arguments pro/against.
And we want people to make sacrifices for climate change?
The main problems with most proposed solutions are: (1) they ideological (e.g. "meat harms the environment"), (2) they exacerbate inequality ("no flying except private"), (3) they're ignorant ("no nuclear, let's double down on destabilizing solar").
If instead you proposed solutions that were (1) actually "we're all in this together" (e.g. revenue-neutral carbon tax, or a yearly "carbon budget" so that rich people flying private would pay much more), (2) utilized best technology available (nuclear+solar+batteries+synthesised fuel+...), and (3) respected individual liberty (e.g. some people would rather eat less meat, others would prefer to drive less), you'd see much more public support.
- ay 5y agoThe agreement to be a part of the society is an infringement on personal freedoms by definition - individuals agrees to constrain their behaviors to a set of rules, in return getting the benefit of scale. A healthy society by definition aims to maximize the sum of benefit minus the inconveniences of constraints. In the old days of the village life one could forfeit the impacts to their personal freedom, abandon society and go live in the forest on their own. Unfortunately the modern societies do not give this option. It would be truly helpful to give some perspective to people.
- lovecg 5y agoGenerally you don’t have a right to drive in any way you want on a public road. There are tons of restrictions on your personal liberty that you agree to when you get behind the wheel, including free expression (try to install a red/blue flashing light on your car and claim first amendment protections). And seatbelts are not required on private roads, or in any case the law would not be enforceable (though if that did happen I’d like to learn about it and be proven wrong).
- malermeister 5y agoThis, as so many viewpoints that claim to be in favor of freedom, completely obsesses on freedom to, while ignoring freedom from. Freedom to eat meat completely ignores freedom from dying in a climate apocalypse. Freedom to not get vaccinated completely ignores freedom from dying from a deadly disease. When two freedoms conflict, the more impactful should be prioritized. In both of these cases it's freedom from.