5 ms·

Liberty is not an absolute, positive liberty is one thing, negative liberty can't be accepted, we mean for positive liberty the ability to act within the bounda

Liberty is not an absolute, positive liberty is one thing, negative liberty can't be accepted, we mean for positive liberty the ability to act within the boundaries of the liberty possessed by the rest of society, the ability for libertarian to be idiots affect themselves only, but until their idiocy doesn't become negative liberty, and for negative liberty we mean that set of liberties that go to affect the liberties of the rest of the society, saying that we should fucilate all libertarians is a negative liberty, because it spreads hate and put someone else in the society in danger and so my liberty directly limits the liberty of someone else

charcircuit 3y ago
>and put someone else in the society in danger Words can't put someone in danger. Sharing people's words doesn't limit other's liberty.
- Avshalom 3y ago
  [flagged]
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  It's the safest thing we can do to let some violent "ideas"/"ideals" spread, and then acting when they're acting on it only no? We've seen it with Nazi on Africans, Gays and Jews (alphabetically ordered), it ended up so well. I'd say, the freedom of speech can't contain concept that put third party in danger, or that could limit the liberties of others, because bad ideas have always become sufference
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >It's the safest thing I am not arguing about what is the safest thing. A free society should be free to make themselves unsafe if they so wish. >the freedom of speech can't contain concept that put third party in danger, or that could limit the liberties of others If a free society is not capable of relinquishing their freedom, then are they truly free?
    - lnxg33k1 3y ago
      ...and I guess those part of the minority who instead would like to live in safety and health can also go somewhere else, right? Because how free is a society that hasn't come out of the clockwork orange I think we can't go anywhere with our conversation, also because you've ignored the part about "putting someone else in danger"
- crabmusket 3y ago
  My dude, google "speech act"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

charcircuit 3y ago

>and put someone else in the society in danger Words can't put someone in danger. Sharing people's words doesn't limit other's liberty.

Avshalom 3y ago
[flagged]
lnxg33k1 3y ago
It's the safest thing we can do to let some violent "ideas"/"ideals" spread, and then acting when they're acting on it only no? We've seen it with Nazi on Africans, Gays and Jews (alphabetically ordered), it ended up so well. I'd say, the freedom of speech can't contain concept that put third party in danger, or that could limit the liberties of others, because bad ideas have always become sufference
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >It's the safest thing I am not arguing about what is the safest thing. A free society should be free to make themselves unsafe if they so wish. >the freedom of speech can't contain concept that put third party in danger, or that could limit the liberties of others If a free society is not capable of relinquishing their freedom, then are they truly free?
  - lnxg33k1 3y ago
    ...and I guess those part of the minority who instead would like to live in safety and health can also go somewhere else, right? Because how free is a society that hasn't come out of the clockwork orange I think we can't go anywhere with our conversation, also because you've ignored the part about "putting someone else in danger"
crabmusket 3y ago
My dude, google "speech act"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]