35 ms·

You're absolutely right. Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate

You're absolutely right. Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right, it certainly is not freedom. We are not more free if people can block your path because they're unhappy...which is what some here are arguing.

dubfan 12y ago
> Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. A profound point apparently lost on so-called intellectuals. Thank you for understanding.
- themartorana 12y ago
  The "to do" part is the active preservation of and action against coercion. If the denial of a right is present, only action against that threat is likely to remove it. Further, a freedom is likely to disappear without continued active exercise - which makes that freedom an action, contrary to your argument. The idea that freedom is absent action or protection is absurd. Using the term "so called intellectuals" makes you sound obtuse.
  - ldlework 12y ago
    Thank you. My mouth was literally agape.
vacri 12y ago
Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom. If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.
- IanDrake 12y ago
  >You want to use the road. They want to use the road. No, I want to use the road, they want to block the road. It's not magic. As a society we have come together, formed a government, and agreed upon how land should be used. The majority agreed we should tax everyone (essentially) and build roads and sidewalks as a means of navigation. There is even a permitting process to use roads for other purposes, such as parades, legal protests, and road races. Blocking the road isn't using it, nor is it legal, nor is it relevant to their cause.
  - Retra 12y ago
    All you have here is an argument of semantics. Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior.
    - IanDrake 12y ago
      >Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior. Huh? I suppose one could say, bathing, singing, peeing, blocking, using, and jazz hands are not mutually exclusive categories of human behavior. All these people need is a tub full of water in the middle of the highway and they can do all those things at the very same time. So then, what the fuck is your point? Because my point is that jazz hands are for Broadway, bathing is for your tub, peeing is for your toilet, and driving is for the road. Why would you argue with that?
      - couchand 12y ago
        Well, just a little while ago the roads were meant for walking. Pedestrians have been ejected from the space that was rightfully theirs.
        IanDrake 12y ago
        >Well, just a little while ago the roads were meant for walking No. Just no. Am I being trolled at this point? Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_road_transport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_road_transport

dubfan 12y ago

> Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. A profound point apparently lost on so-called intellectuals. Thank you for understanding.

themartorana 12y ago
The "to do" part is the active preservation of and action against coercion. If the denial of a right is present, only action against that threat is likely to remove it. Further, a freedom is likely to disappear without continued active exercise - which makes that freedom an action, contrary to your argument. The idea that freedom is absent action or protection is absurd. Using the term "so called intellectuals" makes you sound obtuse.
- ldlework 12y ago
  Thank you. My mouth was literally agape.

vacri 12y ago

Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom. If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.

IanDrake 12y ago
>You want to use the road. They want to use the road. No, I want to use the road, they want to block the road. It's not magic. As a society we have come together, formed a government, and agreed upon how land should be used. The majority agreed we should tax everyone (essentially) and build roads and sidewalks as a means of navigation. There is even a permitting process to use roads for other purposes, such as parades, legal protests, and road races. Blocking the road isn't using it, nor is it legal, nor is it relevant to their cause.
- Retra 12y ago
  All you have here is an argument of semantics. Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior.
  - IanDrake 12y ago
    >Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior. Huh? I suppose one could say, bathing, singing, peeing, blocking, using, and jazz hands are not mutually exclusive categories of human behavior. All these people need is a tub full of water in the middle of the highway and they can do all those things at the very same time. So then, what the fuck is your point? Because my point is that jazz hands are for Broadway, bathing is for your tub, peeing is for your toilet, and driving is for the road. Why would you argue with that?
    - couchand 12y ago
      Well, just a little while ago the roads were meant for walking. Pedestrians have been ejected from the space that was rightfully theirs.
      - IanDrake 12y ago
        >Well, just a little while ago the roads were meant for walking No. Just no. Am I being trolled at this point? Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_road_transport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_road_transport