What's the Appropriate Limits of Personal Freedom? (Israel, drug, weapon)

[coschristi]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Americans will quickly defend their personal freedom, considering it the most important thing there is – as in seeing it as a semi-religion. Everything in their tone, words, and acts implies they see it as such. But is actually sensible to believe to believe in it this passionately? Is personal freedom really the most important value there is?

You see many Americans “quick to defend their personal freedoms”? Where?

I see the majority of Americans as apathetic about freedom at best & passionate about fear, instead. Many are the epitome of Kindergarteners having a tiff over some perceived injustice: “I’m telling MOM!!” They are begging an “authority” to fix something & kiss their boo-boos, so they can wallow in contemptuous gloat over the perceived offender.

There needs to be MORE value placed on personal freedom. LESS people willing to “call 911” & have their “day in court” ... or 15 minutes of fame. MORE self-sufficiency.

If great power comes with great responsibility; I see a lot of Americans behaving like irresponsible children & literally begging to surrender their personal power to an authority all to willing to take it.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

My shorthand version is this: Freedom is important to the extent that it doesn’t threaten the safety or dignity of others or myself (the Twitter version of it, at least). If an act or expression (to "that" extent or degree) is likely to hurt, harm, or seriously indignify others to unreasonable degrees (unnecessary or excessive defense, retaliation, or punishment - clearly disproportionate to the wrongful act or expression), then that act or expression should have limits, if not outright banned.

Safety; sometimes. Especially for the very young, very old, or otherwise compromised. Dignity? No; grow a pair. Act dignified & make a liar out of those who express something disparaging.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by coschristi

You see many Americans “quick to defend their personal freedoms”? Where?

From all over the political spectrum. From MAGA to #Metoo, from BLM to the NRA. How is this not self-evident?

Originally Posted by coschristi

I see the majority of Americans as apathetic about freedom at best & passionate about fear, instead. Many are the epitome of Kindergarteners having a tiff over some perceived injustice: “I’m telling MOM!!” They are begging an “authority” to fix something & kiss their boo-boos, so they can wallow in contemptuous gloat over the perceived offender.

Calls for affordable health care, gun control, further penalties on sexual harassment, expressing bigotry and so forth are "whining" (as you implied)? No sale, coschristi. The same trivializing retorts got aimed at women 25 years ago when complaining about sexual harassment, especially non-physical sexual harassment - and racial and religious harassment not that much earlier besides. And don't even ask about LGBT and bully victims during that time period.

Originally Posted by coschristi

There needs to be MORE value placed on personal freedom. LESS people willing to “call 911” & have their “day in court” ... or 15 minutes of fame. MORE self-sufficiency.

Freedom to do what? Freedom from what? All I'm hearing from you is whining that people traditionally looked down on by the majority aren't putting up with it any more. You just don't like the fact that the world is changing and the old-school standards of respect-worthy person no longer apply. Historically typical behavior from those "at the top" or even "adequate" to name-call against "out-crowders" who decide to stop taking it. And you don't like it that they're winning.

Originally Posted by coschristi

If great power comes with great responsibility; I see a lot of Americans behaving like irresponsible children & literally begging to surrender their personal power to an authority all to willing to take it.

How about people with great power (physical, monetary, social clout, etc) start taking responsibility for their own treatment of the less powerful? Women, racial or religious minorities, LGBT, people with disabilities, or people who are traumatized or have mental illness.

Originally Posted by coschristi

Safety; sometimes. Especially for the very young, very old, or otherwise compromised. Dignity? No; grow a pair. Act dignified & make a liar out of those who express something disparaging.

Act dignified? What if the person is too weak, too traumatized, or too verbally unskilled to defend themselves? Throw them under the bus? That attitude's more due to kneejerk personal distaste than the rational thought process. Hate to say it to you, but The Golden Rule's not just for the strong, smart, brave, thick-skinned, or socially or cognitively competent.

[markg91359]

Originally Posted by coschristi

You see many Americans “quick to defend their personal freedoms”? Where?

I see the majority of Americans as apathetic about freedom at best & passionate about fear, instead. Many are the epitome of Kindergarteners having a tiff over some perceived injustice: “I’m telling MOM!!” They are begging an “authority” to fix something & kiss their boo-boos, so they can wallow in contemptuous gloat over the perceived offender.

There needs to be MORE value placed on personal freedom. LESS people willing to “call 911” & have their “day in court” ... or 15 minutes of fame. MORE self-sufficiency.

If great power comes with great responsibility; I see a lot of Americans behaving like irresponsible children & literally begging to surrender their personal power to an authority all to willing to take it.



Safety; sometimes. Especially for the very young, very old, or otherwise compromised. Dignity? No; grow a pair. Act dignified & make a liar out of those who express something disparaging.

I have some news for you. Taking someone to court is exercising your freedom. The Constitution gives you the right to due process of law.

[coschristi]

Originally Posted by markg91359

I have some news for you. Taking someone to court is exercising your freedom. The Constitution gives you the right to due process of law.

Obviously. And it's an important one too.

Every day for the last 13 years; I wake up to a diminished quality of life & mitigated economic viability, due to being denied due process of law to litigate the liability involved in my child's permanent disability.

That only serves to aggravate even further, my annoyance with the OP referencing "bigotry, bullying & sexual harassment" to justify challenging the Constitution. In context: It's frivolous.

[coschristi]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

From all over the political spectrum. From MAGA to #Metoo, from BLM to the NRA. How is this not self-evident?

Calls for affordable health care, gun control, further penalties on sexual harassment, expressing bigotry and so forth are "whining" (as you implied)? No sale, coschristi. The same trivializing retorts got aimed at women 25 years ago when complaining about sexual harassment, especially non-physical sexual harassment - and racial and religious harassment not that much earlier besides. And don't even ask about LGBT and bully victims during that time period.

Yeeaahh ... We are at opposite ends of the spectrum, so I’m not sure how productive any engagement would be but ... How is affordable healthcare a point of contention in the context of “freedoms”?

Gun control is a point of contention. It’s reasonable to fear becoming a victim of violent crime. It’s not reasonable to expect that less violent crime will occur; as a result of non-criminals surrendering their rights.

One of the points of having laws that restrict the freedom of those convicted of violent crime, is to mitigate the convicts ability to victimize. Would incarcerating you have any meaningful impact on violent crime rates? Only if you were a violent criminal.

Why would mitigating the rights of other “non-violent & not-a-criminal” persons... afford you any safety?

Sexual harassment, Bigotry & Bullying? What “retorts” exactly did I use?

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Freedom to do what? Freedom from what? All I'm hearing from you is whining that people traditionally looked down on by the majority aren't putting up with it any more. You just don't like the fact that the world is changing and the old-school standards of respect-worthy person no longer apply. Historically typical behavior from those "at the top" or even "adequate" to name-call against "out-crowders" who decide to stop taking it. And you don't like it that they're winning.

I am hardly someone at the “top” or in the “in-crowd” & I have survived violent physical assault, sexual assault, alienation due to racial, or rather; ethnic origin & discrimination due to disability.

You?

My perspective is way too broad to buy into social propaganda of this nature; that would require me to deny my own experiences & those were valuable learning experiences. Nobody owes me anything. I am not afraid. I do not need constant social validation. I understand that I have made some very poor choices along the way that contributed to my vulnerability & I know that I am lucky to be alive right now.

You do not understand. I used to believe the way that you do & it’s dangerous.

Originally Posted by Phil75230

How about people with great power (physical, monetary, social clout, etc) start taking responsibility for their own treatment of the less powerful? Women, racial or religious minorities, LGBT, people with disabilities, or people who are traumatized or have mental illness

Act dignified? What if the person is too weak, too traumatized, or too verbally unskilled to defend themselves? Throw them under the bus? That attitude's more due to kneejerk personal distaste than the rational thought process. Hate to say it to you, but The Golden Rule's not just for the strong, smart, brave, thick-skinned, or socially or cognitively competent.

So tell me. How much time & money to you spend every day serving the most marginalized of us? What have you lost in the process that makes you believe others should surrender their freedoms?

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by coschristi

Obviously. And it's an important one too.

Every day for the last 13 years; I wake up to a diminished quality of life & mitigated economic viability, due to being denied due process of law to litigate the liability involved in my child's permanent disability.

That only serves to aggravate even further, my annoyance with the OP referencing "bigotry, bullying & sexual harassment" to justify challenging the Constitution. In context: It's frivolous.

Efforts to overturn Plessy vs Ferguson, DOMA, and anti-sodomy laws - all efforts to challenging the constitution. Discrimination is hardly a friviolus issue, especially when it involves a person's right to not be severely limited in their opportunities to take them as far as their talents theoretically enable them to go. Same thing goes for limiting the types of firearms a civilian may carry.

Originally Posted by coschristi

Yeeaahh ... We are at opposite ends of the spectrum, so I’m not sure how productive any engagement would be but ... How is affordable healthcare a point of contention in the context of “freedoms”?

Gun control is a point of contention. It’s reasonable to fear becoming a victim of violent crime. It’s not reasonable to expect that less violent crime will occur; as a result of non-criminals surrendering their rights.

One of the points of having laws that restrict the freedom of those convicted of violent crime, is to mitigate the convicts ability to victimize. Would incarcerating you have any meaningful impact on violent crime rates? Only if you were a violent criminal.

Why would mitigating the rights of other “non-violent & not-a-criminal” persons... afford you any safety?

There are rights to not be exposed to people setting out to murder you. You can't kill as many people with a knife as you can with a gun. On that note, most states ban pocket knives with blades longer than a certain length (usually 4 inches). Others also ban gravity knives and switchblades altogether (I know Texas and Louisiana have opposite bans on one and the other, forgot which is which for each state. But that's beside the point).

Originally Posted by coschristi

Sexual harassment, Bigotry & Bullying? What “retorts” exactly did I use?

Here you go,

Originally Posted by coschristi

Many are the epitome of Kindergarteners having a tiff over some perceived injustice: “I’m telling MOM!!” They are begging an “authority” to fix something & kiss their boo-boos, so they can wallow in contemptuous gloat over the perceived offender.

How is that NOT demeaning to people targeted for sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, anti-[religion here], or ableist acts, language, visual communications, or other expressions? Calling them immature, smearing them for being too powerless to handle the matter themselves? How is that not a retort, and a demeaning one at that? That's just victim-blaming.

Originally Posted by coschristi

I am hardly someone at the “top” or in the “in-crowd” & I have survived violent physical assault, sexual assault, alienation due to racial, or rather; ethnic origin & discrimination due to disability.

You?

My perspective is way too broad to buy into social propaganda of this nature; that would require me to deny my own experiences & those were valuable learning experiences. Nobody owes me anything. I am not afraid. I do not need constant social validation. I understand that I have made some very poor choices along the way that contributed to my vulnerability & I know that I am lucky to be alive right now.

You do not understand. I used to believe the way that you do & it’s dangerous.

I've worked with plenty of racial minorities (mostly blacks), some of the workplaces majority black. They've told me their experiences of being discriminated against for promotions, and having more difficulty than whites or asians for even getting hired for middle-class positions. That's clearly a matter of freedom to go as far as your talents can take you.

Also, where did you get the idea that the world doesn't owe you anything - they owe you basic human dignity, if nothing else. Freedom's not just about economics, and I wouldn't even call economics the primary issue about what freedoms we ought to have (not trivial, simply not primary). As for social validation, there is the issue of workplace harassment (about whatever difference), which does have real effects on people on the receiving end of it.

As for your "poor choices", I'm not going to comment and I won't ask you what they were. Even so, I hold the person in the most powerful position / ability to choose not to engage in a hurtful, degrading, or exploitative, etc. act (i.e., fully informed about the matter at issue, with sufficient mental capacity to know the moral/duty/consequences seriousness of the act they plan to do, and willpower to refuse to do so if they know it's a bad thing). Those types I do hold most responsible for bad acts. With great power comes great responsibility, as they say. Again, I don't know your situation, so I won't comment on yours specifically or even generally.

Originally Posted by coschristi

So tell me. How much time & money to you spend every day serving the most marginalized of us? What have you lost in the process that makes you believe others should surrender their freedoms?

I usually spend about 4 to 6 hrs per month working at a food bank. I also donate a few hundred a year to the same. All without losing anything in the process (unless you're gonna count losing a few hundred bucks and 4 to 6 hrs per month a loss on my part).

[ChiGeekGuest]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Americans will quickly defend their personal freedom, considering it the most important thing there is – as in seeing it as a semi-religion. Everything in their tone, words, and acts implies they see it as such. But is actually sensible to believe to believe in it this passionately? Is personal freedom really the most important value there is? I say not, for valuing freedom this highly and this fervently leads to strange, if not self-destructive, conclusions.

First, the definition itself. I will say freedom means “the lack of barriers, limits, or inhibitions between what one desires and actual fulfillment of that desire”, and in the most absolute sense of the term besides. For a good metaphor, think of science documentaries showing gas molecules zipping across the screen in every direction, with some occasionally ricocheting off each other after collisions. This seems the only consistent definition of freedom I can think of. If there’s a better, more self-consistent definition, I’d like to see it.

By this definition, if we’re to stay true to the claim’s form, that implies that we should never interfere with people setting out to commit even the most blood-boilingly outrageous acts and expressions. Thus, true believers in “freedom first” are being incoherent when they support stopping people from committing such acts. After all, “the most important” means “THE most important”.

Of course, practically nobody supports personal freedom this much, for the reason just stated. At this point, they amend their belief with “as long as it doesn’t hurt others” (some add to this “or degrade the dignity of others”). However, this corrupts the purity of the “freedom first” claim. Adding this condition to “freedom” implies that the condition itself actually is more important than freedom.

So how much freedom actually is too much freedom? To what extent or degree is it necessary to restrict it? Should we restrict freedom in some areas even as we allow for more freedom in others?

My shorthand version is this: Freedom is important to the extent that it doesn’t threaten the safety or dignity of others or myself (the Twitter version of it, at least). If an act or expression (to "that" extent or degree) is likely to hurt, harm, or seriously indignify others to unreasonable degrees (unnecessary or excessive defense, retaliation, or punishment - clearly disproportionate to the wrongful act or expression), then that act or expression should have limits, if not outright banned.

Apologize for coming so late to your thread although I did read the other replies before posting this one.

I like your definition of freedom & your analogy. Although I'd like to interject a consideration right off the bat. Freedom for whom? Freedom for people or freedom for property? That may sound a bit odd but I think it's time to confront some of these basic questions. Mitt Romney infamously stated, "Corporations are people, my friend" ~ was he correct?

Stating the obvious now, people are not property. There I said it, does this belong in the controversies forum? How did we get here? Here's an essay that confronts some of the 'sacred cows' most common in the US but also elsewhere:

...For liberals, basic rights are fundamental, in the sense that they can’t be compromised or traded against other, non-basic rights. They are also inalienable; I can’t contractually transfer away or otherwise give up my basic rights. To the extent that I enter contracts that do this, I have an option of exit that restores those rights.

This is different from property rights in specific things.

...When libertarians say they are for basic rights, what they are really saying is that they are for treating what liberals consider basic rights as property rights. Basic rights receive no more, or less, protection than other property rights. You can easily give them up or bargain them away, and thus alienate yourself from them. (Meanwhile, all property rights are entirely fundamental – they can never be regulated.) ...

We Already Tried Libertarianism - It Was Called Feudalism - Roosevelt Institute

If, as you've defined, freedom means “the lack of barriers, limits, or inhibitions between what one desires and actual fulfillment of that desire”, & property, for example a corporation, has the same guarantees of freedom that a real person does, how does that work out for the real people?

How is it different from the days of feudalism?

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest

Apologize for coming so late to your thread although I did read the other replies before posting this one.

No problem, Chi. Better late than never

Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest

I like your definition of freedom & your analogy. Although I'd like to interject a consideration right off the bat. Freedom for whom? Freedom for people or freedom for property? That may sound a bit odd but I think it's time to confront some of these basic questions. Mitt Romney infamously stated, "Corporations are people, my friend" ~ was he correct?

Stating the obvious now, people are not property. There I said it, does this belong in the controversies forum? How did we get here? Here's an essay that confronts some of the 'sacred cows' most common in the US but also elsewhere:



We Already Tried Libertarianism - It Was Called Feudalism - Roosevelt Institute

Yes. Right from the start, there's a conflict between personal freedom and "property freedom". It goes deeper than that. I already mentioned two different types of personal freedom (freedom to not experience those "most blood-boilingly outrageous acts" and freedom to commit them against another person). There's also conflict of property rights (right to bury anthrax-infested hogs on your property vs. the right of of neighboring property owners not to have anthrax infest their properties).

Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest

If, as you've defined, freedom means “the lack of barriers, limits, or inhibitions between what one desires and actual fulfillment of that desire”, & property, for example a corporation, has the same guarantees of freedom that a real person does, how does that work out for the real people?

How is it different from the days of feudalism?

I can't see how the final result could be anything but feudalism (even informally). Freedom for all in this context means a "free-for-all" - with every person and their property being an independent country, and some "countries" invading or peacefully consolidating. Naturally, this level of freedom endangers both the people and their ownership of the property, if not the property itself. Eventually, there'll be a few powerful (usually large) combinations literally lording it over others, by "virtue" of those others being unable to defend themselves against the strongest owners. And that is why I find freedom in my sense inherently impossible in the long term. The only question remaining is "How far away should we travel from 'true, pure freedom'? Somalia? The USA? Sweden? China? North Korea?". How far is too far?

[ColoGuy]

I think reasonable people recognize appropriate limits when they see them. Unfortunately we live in a world where the proverbial "squeaky wheel gets the grease."

If we just "shot all the lawyers" much of this problem would just go away.

[ChiGeekGuest]

Originally Posted by ColoGuy

I think reasonable people recognize appropriate limits when they see them. Unfortunately we live in a world where the proverbial "squeaky wheel gets the grease."

If we just "shot all the lawyers" much of this problem would just go away.

Maybe so.

Alternatively, one might consider real courage as opposed to the self-imprisonment self-imposed by clichéd & purely axiomatic thought processes.

Real freedom is courage experienced. Real courage is rethinking, thinking more than twice, so to speak, & thereby risk one's own clichés. Nothing to lose.

Break out.