Well if you decide to create rules to remove freedom and then say "you can only get your freedom back with this device I'll force you to wear" and call that "more freedom", we have different definitions. You could let them go to the same places they will go with the watch already, you were the one limiting freedom, not the absence of a watch.
Although I agree in a way, you already have limits to your freedom that you have agreed to tacitly. The differences, for instance, in the technology (from GPS to tanks) allowed to the military and to the citizenry. It is codified, explicit, and everyone seems to agree that it's okay. It's certainly a limit on your freedom, if you want to speak absolutely, but if you don't think it's reasonable, that's a difficult point to make properly.
No, locking down stuff like that is not 'freedom' in his (and mine) book. Locking down a device so that the _owner_ of said device cannot mess with it as he likes after paying you is not related to freedom. It removes freedom.
Under what definition of freedom does having less right to defend yourself make you more free?
I understand how you might see the tradeoff as worth it - some safety purchased at a cost of freedom. But expanding the list of things that you're not allowed to do doesn't seem like it could possibly be interpreted as expanding freedom. Same argument for drug or alcohol prohibition, religious restrictions, etc.
The ability to choose and go back and forth on these kinds of thing at will is the perfect expression of freedom. Being forced into one or the other option no matter how they feel about it is the opposite of freedom. Now some sports might define rough regulations about the minimum and/or maximum to wear, and that is fair too, as long as it is open for change as well.
So you believe in absolute personal freedom except when you don't like its consequences and in curtailing personal freedom except when doing so might inconvenience you personally?
Because having freedom in how you spend your leisure time obviously means that taking away that optionality would lead to.. revolt!!! I just don't see your logic here. It seems outdated.
The freedom to harm others(i.e women) or restrict other people's freedoms(i.e what to install on my device, what books to read etc) is not really freedom
But they aren't restricting your freedom. They would be restricting your freedom if some people could buy those appliances but not you. Saying they are restricting your freedom using your example is like saying your friend was put in jail, and thus they are restricting your freedom to hang out with that friend, which IMHO is a bad interpretation.
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.
reply