Complete Freedom only exists when you allow self AND others to do what they want.

If you only do whatever you want, but not others, then you are anti-freedom, restricting the freedom of others.

If you only support other people's freedom but not your own, then you are anti-freedom, restricting the freedom of self.

Only when you accept yourself as you are and accept others as they are, are you truly embracing Truth (Reality) . To restrict self or others is to suppress Truth.

Trying to restrict the freedom of gay people, women, or other races is being anti-freedom.

Acceptance is true respect for The Truth.

This is how I know the difference between those who claim to "support Freedom" and those who actually do.

Um...if you allow EVERYONE to do ANYTHING they want, that would be madness.

Allowing, murderers, rapists and child molesters to carry out their sick will on society is complete and utter nonsense, not freedom.

a reply to: mytquin

Right, restricting peoples ability to place restrictions or deficiencis on or in other people's lives is not losing any freedom, op, it's gaining it. If you are sick, you want white blood cells to instill your bodies proper order again.

originally posted by: lightofgratitude
Trying to restrict the freedom of gay people, women, or other races is being anti-freedom.

Trying to restrict the freedom of homophobes, misogynists and racists to be themselves is also anti-freedom.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

As long as they keep those restrictive tendencies to themselves yes... if ultimate freedom is the goal, then not allowing anyone to take anyone else's freedom is not reducing the freedom at all but improving it. Do we really need to get the paradox of intolerance up in here?

a reply to: lightofgratitude

My rights end where yours begin and vis-à-vis. My freedoms are contingent on not impinging yours and vis-à-vis. True freedom is the ability to say no and that cannot be changed by any other person, entity or government using force, violence or extortion.

But it's a moot point anyway as you would have to have the ability to make choices and have free will, which no one does. What is it when you cannot make choices, have no free will or say no? A prison.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: mytquin
Um...if you allow EVERYONE to do ANYTHING they want, that would be madness.

Allowing, murderers, rapists and child molesters to carry out their sick will on society is complete and utter nonsense, not freedom.

I like your immediate assumption that nobody would exercise their own freedom to stop said murders, rapists, and child molesters. That does bring with it the risk of vigilante justice, of course, which is rarely if ever healthy for a society.

In fact, there are already laws telling people that they are not allowed to murder, rape, or molest children, yet it still happens, so the issue clearly isn't the absence of restriction.

However, I agree with you in principle. I think the question really becomes the mechanism for delineating rights and obligations, as others have indicated.

You should have the right to do whatever you wish, subject to the obligation that you do not subject another person to unnecessary risk or nuisance. Get as high as a kite at home if you like , but not if you are responsible for looking after children or driving to work. If you can figure out a way to set off nuclear bombs in your backyard without affecting the neighbours, go for it.

originally posted by: Stromth
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

As long as they keep those restrictive tendencies to themselves yes...

Should they have the freedom to petition the government to enforce restrictions?

The paradox of intolerance is important.
Rights are something people need to fight for, limiting people from fighting for unjust rights limits people fighting for just rights.

And we're not immune from hate ourselves.
Is the hatred I have for Nazi's any different to the hate they have for the Jewish community?

We are already free, but we keep convincing ourselves otherwise.

Liberty is the discipline to self-govern. Not a granted right from a government to do whatever you want.

There is an acknowledged limit and scope to freedom in Western societies, and it is expressed succinctly by John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book, 'On Liberty'. In it he states the following percept...

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant ...Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

That is the sum total of your freedom, or at least the best claim to freedom, that you, as an individual, over your own body and mind are sovereign. Nobody, no government, no group has a right to impose upon you, upon your body or to impose on your mind any form of physicality or ideology that you yourself cannot reconcile yourself with. However, as noble as this thinking is, the truth is it is hard to have it in practice.

Others do want to impose on you, particularly if you want to live within a society, because to do so, to enjoy both the protections and the benefits of a society, you have to compromise and censor your own ideology, your own behaviour. You cannot do what you want in a society, as an individual or as a group, because your thoughts and actions might destabilise that society, hence, laws, rules, and regulations.

originally posted by: mytquin
Um...if you allow EVERYONE to do ANYTHING they want, that would be madness.

Allowing, murderers, rapists and child molesters to carry out their sick will on society is complete and utter nonsense, not freedom.

True freedom is as impossible as perfection if you live in a society. By definition, a member of a society must abide by the common laws set forth by the society itself, i.e don't murder or steal, but that alone isn't what makes true freedom impossible. It's the contradiction in that the concept of freedom is "I'm allowed to do as I wish and so is someone else" If that person kills me, they have the freedom to do so, but the act of killing me has removed my freedom to live without having been killed thus making true freedom an impossibility.

The following statement is a lie.
The previous statement is true.

originally posted by: lightofgratitude
If you only do whatever you want, but not others, then you are anti-freedom, restricting the freedom of others.

If you only support other people's freedom but not your own, then you are anti-freedom, restricting the freedom of self.

Only when you accept yourself as you are and accept others as they are, are you truly embracing Truth (Reality) . To restrict self or others is to suppress Truth.

Trying to restrict the freedom of gay people, women, or other races is being anti-freedom.

Acceptance is true respect for The Truth.

This is how I know the difference between those who claim to "support Freedom" and those who actually do.

Er no... What you described is called Anarchy.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: mytquin
Um...if you allow EVERYONE to do ANYTHING they want, that would be madness.

Allowing, murderers, rapists and child molesters to carry out their sick will on society is complete and utter nonsense, not freedom.

I like your immediate assumption that nobody would exercise their own freedom to stop said murders, rapists, and child molesters. That does bring with it the risk of vigilante justice, of course, which is rarely if ever healthy for a society.

In fact, there are already laws telling people that they are not allowed to murder, rape, or molest children, yet it still happens, so the issue clearly isn't the absence of restriction.

However, I agree with you in principle. I think the question really becomes the mechanism for delineating rights and obligations, as others have indicated.

You should have the right to do whatever you wish, subject to the obligation that you do not subject another person to unnecessary risk or nuisance. Get as high as a kite at home if you like , but not if you are responsible for looking after children or driving to work. If you can figure out a way to set off nuclear bombs in your backyard without affecting the neighbours, go for it.

Bolding mine - The trouble is defining nuisance though isn't it.