5 ms·

Obviously total freedom is not possible or desirable. You'd need to be free to kill others. My position is that visual pollution is not such a great concern th

• marssaxman 4y ago
  Well, okay: now we can have a reasonable discussion. It's not actually about freedom, it's about how big a deal it is to pollute the commons with advertising. This is a question on which reasonable people may have differing opinions. How are we to sort it out? A majority vote might be one mechanism. Selection of representatives who can research the issue and negotiate compromises might be another.
  • xupybd 4y ago
    My uneducated theory on this is that the problem with government interferences is proportional to the distance between you and the bureaucrat making the decision. For example, if a world government said we don't want anyone wearing yellow hats. That's a problem because over the globe there are going to be some odd folks that care very much about their yellow hats (insert hypothetical religion / cause here). But if you get together with your neighbours and say let’s create a pact to legally require that all people remove their yellow hats from our gated community, well fine if you love yellow hats, you probably don't like these yellow hat haters anyway, who cares if they don't let you into their street. That same could be done in local areas. But I think central business districts or areas that have a huge number of commuters there are just too many people involved. You now must have a lot more of a justification for the freedoms that are lost. That said if all the building owners want to put that restriction in I'm all for it.