6 ms·

Feels pretty legit though. My freedom-from is impacted by other people's freedom-to: by curtailing their freedom, mine is expanded. Sure they won't like it - bu

by pmg102 3y ago

Feels pretty legit though. My freedom-from is impacted by other people's freedom-to: by curtailing their freedom, mine is expanded. Sure they won't like it - but I don't like it the other way round either.

AlexandrB 3y ago
This doesn't add up. At best your overall freedom remains the same. You gain quiet, you lose the freedom to make noise yourself. Seems like a net-negative to me. Consider how little freedom you would have if laws were enforced to the lowest common denominator of what people find acceptable.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  I can go into the countryside and make noise all day. I don't see that there's a pre-existing freedom to inflict loud noises on my neighbors for no useful purpose.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - namaria 3y ago
    You most definitely cannot disturb wildlife or rural communities with noise.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      Don't be pedantic, I specifically said my intention was not to inflict unwanted noise on my neighbors.
      - namaria 3y ago
        Don't be daft. There is no vacuum where you can go be a massive tool and not face any consequences.
- pmg102 3y ago
  You're missing the point that the freedom from and freedom to may be weighted differently for each individual. For instance I lose almost nothing by not having the freedom to carry a weapon (UK) as I have no desire to do so, while gaining a lot from having the freedom to not risk my child being murdered at school. It's an extreme example but applies to a lesser degree for other freedoms, and I've personally found I often benefit more from freedoms-from than freedoms-to. I'd love it if no vehicle could exceed 30 mph in town as I gain almost no benefit from being able to do so, while taking on significant risk from others being able to.
0134340 3y ago
I'd argue that if we want to support individual growth and creativity, freedom-to should have higher priority than freedom-from, which consciously or not has seems to be the traditional default in the US perhaps due to its culture of supporting innovation and its break-away past. I believe some refer to these as positive and negative freedoms, respectfully.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  This is also why a number of people truly revolt against the idea of higher density living. If the only way to have your freedom-from is to be free from other people, then you move away from other people. I've watched it play out on my mother-in-law's street. What was once a quiet dead end street is now a noisy, heavily trafficked road because a large apartment building was put up at the end. The number of freedom-to people have significantly decreased her quality of life blasting music as they walk or drive by at all hours, along with a litany of other complaints that range from anti-social to outright illegal behavior. Even setting aside the illegal stuff, she is significantly less happy living where she is now.

by pmg102 3y ago

AlexandrB 3y ago

This doesn't add up. At best your overall freedom remains the same. You gain quiet, you lose the freedom to make noise yourself. Seems like a net-negative to me. Consider how little freedom you would have if laws were enforced to the lowest common denominator of what people find acceptable.

anigbrowl 3y ago
I can go into the countryside and make noise all day. I don't see that there's a pre-existing freedom to inflict loud noises on my neighbors for no useful purpose.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- namaria 3y ago
  You most definitely cannot disturb wildlife or rural communities with noise.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Don't be pedantic, I specifically said my intention was not to inflict unwanted noise on my neighbors.
    - namaria 3y ago
      Don't be daft. There is no vacuum where you can go be a massive tool and not face any consequences.
pmg102 3y ago
You're missing the point that the freedom from and freedom to may be weighted differently for each individual. For instance I lose almost nothing by not having the freedom to carry a weapon (UK) as I have no desire to do so, while gaining a lot from having the freedom to not risk my child being murdered at school. It's an extreme example but applies to a lesser degree for other freedoms, and I've personally found I often benefit more from freedoms-from than freedoms-to. I'd love it if no vehicle could exceed 30 mph in town as I gain almost no benefit from being able to do so, while taking on significant risk from others being able to.

0134340 3y ago

I'd argue that if we want to support individual growth and creativity, freedom-to should have higher priority than freedom-from, which consciously or not has seems to be the traditional default in the US perhaps due to its culture of supporting innovation and its break-away past. I believe some refer to these as positive and negative freedoms, respectfully.

zdragnar 3y ago
This is also why a number of people truly revolt against the idea of higher density living. If the only way to have your freedom-from is to be free from other people, then you move away from other people. I've watched it play out on my mother-in-law's street. What was once a quiet dead end street is now a noisy, heavily trafficked road because a large apartment building was put up at the end. The number of freedom-to people have significantly decreased her quality of life blasting music as they walk or drive by at all hours, along with a litany of other complaints that range from anti-social to outright illegal behavior. Even setting aside the illegal stuff, she is significantly less happy living where she is now.