4 ms·

I don't get this interpretation of "free". Would you say that one should be "free" to kill someone else? Nobody wants absolute freedom. We all want some set of

by palata 2y ago

I don't get this interpretation of "free". Would you say that one should be "free" to kill someone else? Nobody wants absolute freedom. We all want some set of rules (e.g. "You should not be allowed to burn my house for fun"). Of course, we may want rules that benefit us personally ("Taxes should be paid to me personally, not to the country"), but that obviously doesn't work (if taxes are paid exclusively to me, they can't be paid exclusively to you). So as a group, we agree on a set of rules that benefits society the most. We want to "maximize the global utility", if I can say it like this. If "not having unicorns" is better for the society at large than "having unicorns", then it works. And your short-sighted, convenient understanding of "freedom" doesn't change that.

huntertwo 2y ago
How would you restrict the existence of unicorns? Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument. Edit: my implicit argument is that restricting unicorns while sounds nice on paper is that the net benefit of an implementation of that is net negative - not that absolute anarchy is the solution.
- palata 2y ago
  > Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument. Because your sarcasm was constructive, maybe? > my implicit argument is that Next time, maybe consider making it explicit and without using sarcasm. My explicit answer was that if you consider that regulations are fundamentally against freedom, then I disagree. To me, it's perfectly fine to regulate unicorns if we believe it is better for the society. You can disagree with the fact that it would be better for society, but that's not what you said. What you said is that regulating against unicorns would be against freedom.
- abenga 2y ago
  > How would you restrict the existence of unicorns? Enact and enforce anti trust laws.

by palata 2y ago

huntertwo 2y ago

How would you restrict the existence of unicorns? Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument. Edit: my implicit argument is that restricting unicorns while sounds nice on paper is that the net benefit of an implementation of that is net negative - not that absolute anarchy is the solution.

palata 2y ago
> Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument. Because your sarcasm was constructive, maybe? > my implicit argument is that Next time, maybe consider making it explicit and without using sarcasm. My explicit answer was that if you consider that regulations are fundamentally against freedom, then I disagree. To me, it's perfectly fine to regulate unicorns if we believe it is better for the society. You can disagree with the fact that it would be better for society, but that's not what you said. What you said is that regulating against unicorns would be against freedom.
abenga 2y ago
> How would you restrict the existence of unicorns? Enact and enforce anti trust laws.