3 ms·
>Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me Conversely, your desire to be free from smoke should not extend to imposing consequenc
by Rury 5y ago
>Your freedom to choose should not extend to imposing consequences on me
Conversely, your desire to be free from smoke should not extend to imposing consequences on those that don't. The problem is, at some point, there's a conflict on where to draw the line. Because, as soon as the line is drawn, freedoms have been limited/reduced/compromised in a way.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoAbsolutely true. Freedom given almost always equals the opposite freedom taken from someone else. So let me try again, hopefully with a bit more precision: If you want to do something to your own body in a way that doesn't affect me, then I have little basis for fighting over where the line should be drawn. You want to smoke in your house? Knock yourself out. You want to smoke in your car? Go for it. You want to smoke in my face? Now we have a battle about where that line is going to be drawn - whose freedom will be lost, yours or mine. Now I at least have legitimate grounds for arguing that your freedom should be the one to lose.
- Rury 5y agoAnd I think that's plenty reasonable. Not trying to argue, was just pointing out the problem that underlies all politics: conflicts in wills (or even from strictly a libertarian viewpoint, conflict in freedoms, since freedom is a core principle held by libertarians).
- current_mike 5y agoYou can't twist this to make it about both parties. The burden is on the acting individual to not harm others with their choices. Real world personal responsibility is where the line is drawn. Not some idealistic notion of freedom to do whatever you want.
- Rury 5y agoThat's a political philosophy, not a fact. Just as libertarianism is a political philosophy.