3 ms·
I disagree. Banning chewing gum is closest to banning open urination. Restrictions on "freedom" such as not being allowed to dump toxic waste into lakes etc, st
by random314 5y ago
I disagree. Banning chewing gum is closest to banning open urination. Restrictions on "freedom" such as not being allowed to dump toxic waste into lakes etc, stem from preventing tragedy of the commons - not from demanding obedience. The same goes for vaccine mandates.
In fact, one of the primary responsibilities of the government is to prevent tragedy of the commons. Everything else can be driven privately.
- slibhb 5y agoI'm not arguing that people should be able to piss in the street or dump toxic waste. Restrictions on freedom are often justified. My point is that they are restrictions; the fact that a restriction may be good does not magically make it something other than a restriction. I'm aware that most places in the world are not liberal. Fine with me. There's no need for every country or culture to share the same values. But in countries where libertarian freedom is a value, e.g. the US and UK, it should be defended.
- random314 5y agoThere is a difference between liberal and libertarian. Libertarianism has a fairly narrow support even in the US. Those who argue for less regulation also want to ban abortion. The most libertarian representation in US politics was Greenspan and he seemed to walk back on it in 2008. It's a niche point of view in the United states. Moreover, if libertarianism has value, it should be defensible without appeal to the support or lack of support in popular culture.
- slibhb 5y agoI'm not talking about libertarianism in the context of American politics. Liberal and libertarian have similar (or even the same) meaning in political philosophy. The basic idea is that they view freedom as non interference.