my point is that everything should be allowed and the decision should be at a personal level. that’s freedom! literally the definition of freedom. you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t restrict others freedom
Yes, freedom means everybody is allowed to do whatever they want, even if I don't personally agree with their actions and even if some will elect to do stuff harmful to themselves.
I think the point is, freedom is also not free unless you have the right to restrict yourself, with or without option. Freedom includes the right to impose ones own personal restrictions, and not have it imposed upon you from external agency.
Good point. Anyway personal freedom is not exactly the same as freedom of choice. I mean you could be personally less free because you have to work a lot making decisions, and still it's you who call the shots.
Remember that freedom isn’t a resource that a society can have more or less of. Freedom of one person or group always comes with a restriction of freedom of someone else. It’s a delicate balance, not a “do whatever you want” kinda thing.
I say they are personal, because they affect the individual much more than anyone else. Of course everything we do is affecting society somehow, but that does not eliminate personal freedom. If it affects me more than it affects you, my opinion weighs more than your's and vice versa.
My parent made that stretch. I explicitly included other people’s freedom to do the same thing as they want to do in the list of freedoms that their freedom collides with. So call them out.
I agree with your more general point though: framing the entire matter in terms of freedom is detrimental to the debate. However, it’s almost always initially done by the side that wants to retain the status quo.
reply