Which freedom is more important? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Which is more important?

Freedom "to"
6
32%
Freedom "from"
5
26%
Other
8
42%
#15207614
Flawed questioned, both are important. Freedom to do what I want is just as important as freedom from violence from others, and many other examples.

I would generally say "freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others" is a fundamentally good idea.

Personally I think a lot of the nanny state is bullshit and turns us into dependents of the state, exceptions being actual dependents like the sick/disabled. I do believe in a strong social safety net (temporary) for those who fall on hard times. And I believe in highly subsidized post-secondary education, and highly regulated or universal healthcare/insurance

Sweeping generalizations are also often bullshit and there's usually exceptions to everything which is why ideology sucks and everything should be judged based on cost/benefit analysis.
#15207646
Fasces wrote:There are two concepts of liberty. Which is more important? Freedom to act or freedom from restriction?

Example 1:

The government does not prevent me from going on strike. I can do so at any time - refuse to work and try to use that leverage to get a better salary. The government doesn't stop me from trying to recruit others to join me: we have freedom of association and speech, and no one can legally impede on either. However, I am an individual that lives paycheck to paycheck. I cannot afford to not work, or to strike, and barely have time to organize or express speech. No one is stopping me from doing it, but I don't have the ability to do it.

Example 2:

The government restricts my ability to speak information contrary to their Covid vaccination policy. The government limits the freedom of movement in and out of the country by shutting down borders, and mandates all inhabitants have a vaccine. However, because of this, I have the freedom to go about my daily business safetly, without risk to my health. There are no need for lockdowns or other ornerous measures. I've lost my freedom of speech, and I've lost my bodily autonomy - but I've gained the freedom to go about my business, socialize, and so on.


Christ... OK. Look.

I drove for a living. There was no mandate to get vaccinated even for those of us who drove hundreds of people every week in our own cars. We had to wear masks according to the companies, but that's it.

Going on strike... we were contractors and we signed a no class action lawsuit clause. Even without COVID, there were things to protest. Added stops, changed stops, passengers who took forever to get in the car, passengers who took forever at stops, passengers who gave bad reviews for no reason or for faulty reasons, and passengers who wanted to overload the car were all reasons to stop working...

...and you know what?

There's a reason the annual driver retention rate is in the single digits. People don't want to be contractors in a business where contracts don't get upheld because the company and customers anticipated that contract enforcement is too difficult to be bothered.
#15207670
JohnRawls wrote:What if it is restriction on limiting freedom?

"freedom to" implies such a restriction.

You can't have freedom without some very clear and categorical limits on what can be restricted. Unfortunately most people are not aware of this and the consequence is that all "democratic" countries slowly drift into totalitarianism(due to excessive criminal and regulatory laws that are not constrained almost at all), the US being a prime example of this(enormous number of laws, largest number of people in the world incarcerated or with criminal records, most for victimless pseudo-crimes). New, radical approaches are needed for safeguarding liberty.
#15207673
ccdan wrote:"freedom to" implies such a restriction.

You can't have freedom without some very clear and categorical limits on what can be restricted. Unfortunately most people are not aware of this and the consequence is that all "democratic" countries slowly drift into totalitarianism(due to excessive criminal and regulatory laws that are not constrained almost at all), the US being a prime example of this(enormous number of laws, largest number of people in the world incarcerated or with criminal records, most for victimless pseudo-crimes). New, radical approaches are needed for safeguarding liberty.


No it doesn't. Freedom to doesn't necessarily mean freedom from. It also doesn't cover not direct restrictions on freedom to on top of freedom to violating other freedom to when they conflict. It is a very complicated subject but simply thinking that giving freedom to also covers everything that might restrict or violate that freedom to is naive at best.
#15207739
JohnRawls wrote:No it doesn't. Freedom to doesn't necessarily mean freedom from.

Propaganda terms like "freedom from" should be left aside

Freedom necessarily implies a LACK OF RESTRICTIONS to a very high degree, because that's what the term really means in the literal sense.
That being said, we probably agree, that, as an exception to the rule, some very LIMITED and very PRECISELY SPECIFIED restrictions are necessary for a functioning society, banning those deeds that cause objective and verifiable harms or losses, such as physical harm and/or material/financial loss and/or loss of physical liberty(malum in se deeds)

JohnRawls wrote:It is a very complicated subject

It's not very complicated. The freedom that remains after we ban those malum in se deeds is very inconvenient to paranoid individuals and various ideologues. Many people hate and fear freedom even if they can't objectively prove any kind of harm or loss caused by it - instead they love spewing out all kinds of unproven or even disproved theories about how x deed or thing causes y bad thing/harm - typically they want things or behaviors banned due to ideological or religious or cultural or familial indoctrination, not for objective reasons, though they'll often try to lie and give false reasons for their crusade against freedom.
#15207744
ccdan wrote:Propaganda terms like "freedom from" should be left aside

Freedom necessarily implies a LACK OF RESTRICTIONS to a very high degree, because that's what the term really means in the literal sense.
That being said, we probably agree, that, as an exception to the rule, some very LIMITED and very PRECISELY SPECIFIED restrictions are necessary for a functioning society, banning those deeds that cause objective and verifiable harms or losses, such as physical harm and/or material/financial loss and/or loss of physical liberty(malum in se deeds)


It's not very complicated. The freedom that remains after we ban those malum in se deeds is very inconvenient to paranoid individuals and various ideologues. Many people hate and fear freedom even if they can't objectively prove any kind of harm or loss caused by it - instead they love spewing out all kinds of unproven or even disproved theories about how x deed or thing causes y bad thing/harm - typically they want things or behaviors banned due to ideological or religious or cultural or familial indoctrination, not for objective reasons, though they'll often try to lie and give false reasons for their crusade against freedom.


Lets go to concrete examples then. Freedom of religion directly contradicts some other freedoms for free speech, for example, what to do? Freedom of religion directly contradicts right to life in many cases, what to do? Right to self defence directly contradicts right to life, what to do? Right to vote directly contradicts freedom of religion, what to do? Right of free speech directly contradicts rights for personal life, what to do?

There are a crap ton of examples.
#15208187
JohnRawls wrote: Freedom of religion directly contradicts some other freedoms for free speech, for example, what to do? Freedom of religion directly contradicts right to life in many cases, what to do?

Properly understood, freedom of religion is freedom of religious belief and practice among the adherents of a religion, not freedom forcibly to impose such beliefs and practices on others.
Right to self defence directly contradicts right to life, what to do?

Rights are only possible for those who respect others' rights. That is why animals do not have rights, and children have only limited rights. When you abrogate others' rights, you give up your own.
Right to vote directly contradicts freedom of religion, what to do?

See above re freedom of religion.
Right of free speech directly contradicts rights for personal life, what to do?

Not sure what that means.

Too bad no one in the vicinity had a gun and coul[…]

Who killed J.F.K. ?

Good post, @Rich . As the Southern short story wr[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

I won't make your arguments for you. Your claims[…]

The Death of Luxury Brands

G-Shock Digital battery-driven watches don't wor[…]