Is there a such thing as too much freedom?

[THE HARMONIKZ]

I'd argue that freedom is a concept of which we know little about, further I'd postulate that freedom has limits which make the question incomprehensible.

 

[Jaguar]

Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

John Stuart Mill and the idea that the only legitimate restriction on freedom is the harm it might cause to others is pretty good.

Yes but are we WISE enough to understand the ramifications of our actions?

For example:

Driving a car seems harmless enough as long as you are sober, not speeding, abiding by the driving regulatory code, obeying traffic signs, etc...

So I'm not harming anyone by driving my car to work, right?

Well, let,´s take it one step further; by using a car by myself I,´m polluting quite alot for just one individual, so maybe I should get on a carpool and try to go to work with at least 4 others so that we can minimize the impact on the environment.

It turns out I was harming the environment, which causes decaeses and sometimes even deaths of the very young or the elderly and many animals; It was not what I intended but In the end I,´m contributing to the harm of others.

Let's take it another step further

By buying a foreign car I,´m depriving my countrymen of jobs and resources to feed their families, I liked the car, it was cheap, gave good mileage (always thinking about the environment) but in the end by buying from a brand produced in my country I could have helped a family in my country have a slightly better life.

I was harming my economy by prefering a cheaper car instead of a localy produced one.

Let' s take it one step further

By using an internal combustion vehicle Im creating a demand for gasoline or some other oil derivate; nowadays there is a war being fought in the middle eats so the USA can steal their oil so I can consume it; thousands of innocents are diying so that people can keep using cars. Today's cars run on blood, not on gas.

So I was harming the world by fueling a war by my driving a car.

So what seem as a harmless enough act had very nasty consequences, Am I really free to drive a car? Can I drive a car and still think of myself as a good person? Do I hava a right to put my oil addiction before the lives of the people from Irak? Do I have Too much freedom In this respect?

I have received criticism as somewhat of a radical liberalist, but here's my contribution for the League to judge.

There are two main of my behaviour. The 1st one is Total Individual Freedom/Total Individual Responsability. That means we are free to think and act as we please, but in order to avoid tyranny or hypocresy you must take responsability for your actions.

And the 2nd axis is equality. I execise my freedom but I ackowledge you have the same right. That leads me to acknowledge you as an equal and I come to a reasoning that goes like this: I don't want you to harm me, so I'm not going to harm you either; and we both understand that.

I know that sounds a bit utopic, but I do apply it on a daily basis as far as I can. Speaking in realistic terms, it is possible to achieve such a society, but that can only happen through freethinking education.

Now, I quoted Nemesiah because I have bones to pick up with him/her. Your analogy is flawed because it is fatalistic. You are assuming, for example, that a termite does the same damage to a house than an elephant in an otherwise equal escenario.

You could go to the furthest point and say that your existance is taking up the space someone else might need to exist and that would make us all murderers.

Now, I liked the fact that you picked up and environmental issue, because I happen to be a environmental engineer by trade, and I can tell you that if you expect to do something without causing an impact on the world, that's never gonna happen.

You could argue that since animal respiration emits carbon dioxide, we are all killing ourselves for the simple fact of breathing. But that's not true. Harm to life forms and the environment cames also from natural sources. A volcanic eruption causes a great deal of acute pollution, but you can't say volcanoes are destroying the planet because ultimately the environment has ways to deal with such damages, ways to clean and repair itself.

Earthquakes which cause thousands of deaths are natural happenings. Extinction of species are natural happenings as well.

Now, back on the environment. Let's take the example of hybrid cars. I haven't checked the last numbers but I think thay save up to 60-70% in fuel. That sounds great doesn't it? Well, but the thing is that in order to fabricate the electronical compartments it requires minning. And ore minning is one of the contributors of the worst kind of toxic wastes. Does that mean hybrid cars are bad? No, they are a better option than regular cars but they are not perfect because nothing in world is perfect.

When it comes to the environment, we need to understand that no matter what we do, we affect it. The ethical thing to do is look for alternative ways of doing things that result in less damage, on one hand, and try to restore the loss, on the other.

Finally, in order for the progression of consequenses you wrote to happen, you are not considering magnitude. The simple chain of logical events doesn't sustain itself, in this case, because you are escalating magnitudes in the results but not on the causes.

Economy is build so it can absorb the damage made by some people who chose to buy a foreign car, for example, the same way the environment has a certain level of tolerance to impacts. You buy the cheap foreign car, for example, and carpool so the damage to the national economy is lessed: instead of you and your buddies buying four cheap foreing car, you buy just one. You can argue that will damage the other contry's economy. But you are not considering that cheap car is sold in more countries, and that the price of products is designed to get a profit even without selling all the items. You also forget to consider that your own country may make cheap cars to sell in other countries to compensate for the cheap ones you bought from a foreigner.

As you can see, things get too complicated and no one can really see all the tangents and possible outcomes. But you can't assume a fatalistic possition doing nothing because everything will bring an ill consequence because that's... well, that is just cowardice, and that doesn't help anyone.

That is my point all along. You act freely, but take responsabilty for what you do. If your free will resulted in a third party's damage, then you must do something to compensate.

- The Jaguar

 

[Hawkeye40222]

How much freedom can we enjoy before it becomes a hazard to others or encroaches on their own equal freedoms?

i would think it becomes too much freedom when our direct actions infringe on someone else's freedoms... maybe that's overly simplified, but i think it makes sense

 

[Nemesiah]

"Aught3: Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

John Stuart Mill and the idea that the only legitimate restriction on freedom is the harm it might cause to others is pretty good."

Yes but are we WISE enough to understand the ramifications of our actions?

For example:

Driving a car seems harmless enough as long as you are sober, not speeding, abiding by the driving regulatory code, obeying traffic signs, etc...

So I'm not harming anyone by driving my car to work, right?

Well, let,´s take it one step further; by using a car by myself I,´m polluting quite alot for just one individual, so maybe I should get on a carpool and try to go to work with at least 4 others so that we can minimize the impact on the environment.

It turns out I was harming the environment, which causes decaeses and sometimes even deaths of the very young or the elderly and many animals; It was not what I intended but In the end I,´m contributing to the harm of others.

Let's take it another step further

By buying a foreign car I,´m depriving my countrymen of jobs and resources to feed their families, I liked the car, it was cheap, gave good mileage (always thinking about the environment) but in the end by buying from a brand produced in my country I could have helped a family in my country have a slightly better life.

I was harming my economy by prefering a cheaper car instead of a localy produced one.

Let' s take it one step further

By using an internal combustion vehicle Im creating a demand for gasoline or some other oil derivate; nowadays there is a war being fought in the middle eats so the USA can steal their oil so I can consume it; thousands of innocents are diying so that people can keep using cars. Today's cars run on blood, not on gas.

So I was harming the world by fueling a war by my driving a car.

So what seem as a harmless enough act had very nasty consequences, Am I really free to drive a car? Can I drive a car and still think of myself as a good person? Do I hava a right to put my oil addiction before the lives of the people from Irak? Do I have Too much freedom In this respect?

I have received criticism as somewhat of a radical liberalist, but here's my contribution for the League to judge.

There are two main of my behaviour. The 1st one is Total Individual Freedom/Total Individual Responsability. That means we are free to think and act as we please, but in order to avoid tyranny or hypocresy you must take responsability for your actions.

And the 2nd axis is equality. I execise my freedom but I ackowledge you have the same right. That leads me to acknowledge you as an equal and I come to a reasoning that goes like this: I don't want you to harm me, so I'm not going to harm you either; and we both understand that.

I know that sounds a bit utopic, but I do apply it on a daily basis as far as I can. Speaking in realistic terms, it is possible to achieve such a society, but that can only happen through freethinking education.

Now, I quoted Nemesiah because I have bones to pick up with him/her. Your analogy is flawed because it is fatalistic. You are assuming, for example, that a termite does the same damage to a house than an elephant in an otherwise equal escenario.

You could go to the furthest point and say that your existance is taking up the space someone else might need to exist and that would make us all murderers.

Now, I liked the fact that you picked up and environmental issue, because I happen to be a environmental engineer by trade, and I can tell you that if you expect to do something without causing an impact on the world, that's never gonna happen.

You could argue that since animal respiration emits carbon dioxide, we are all killing ourselves for the simple fact of breathing. But that's not true. Harm to life forms and the environment cames also from natural sources. A volcanic eruption causes a great deal of acute pollution, but you can't say volcanoes are destroying the planet because ultimately the environment has ways to deal with such damages, ways to clean and repair itself.

Earthquakes which cause thousands of deaths are natural happenings. Extinction of species are natural happenings as well.

Now, back on the environment. Let's take the example of hybrid cars. I haven't checked the last numbers but I think thay save up to 60-70% in fuel. That sounds great doesn't it? Well, but the thing is that in order to fabricate the electronical compartments it requires minning. And ore minning is one of the contributors of the worst kind of toxic wastes. Does that mean hybrid cars are bad? No, they are a better option than regular cars but they are not perfect because nothing in world is perfect.

When it comes to the environment, we need to understand that no matter what we do, we affect it. The ethical thing to do is look for alternative ways of doing things that result in less damage, on one hand, and try to restore the loss, on the other.

Finally, in order for the progression of consequenses you wrote to happen, you are not considering magnitude. The simple chain of logical events doesn't sustain itself, in this case, because you are escalating magnitudes in the results but not on the causes.

Economy is build so it can absorb the damage made by some people who chose to buy a foreign car, for example, the same way the environment has a certain level of tolerance to impacts. You buy the cheap foreign car, for example, and carpool so the damage to the national economy is lessed: instead of you and your buddies buying four cheap foreing car, you buy just one. You can argue that will damage the other contry's economy. But you are not considering that cheap car is sold in more countries, and that the price of products is designed to get a profit even without selling all the items. You also forget to consider that your own country may make cheap cars to sell in other countries to compensate for the cheap ones you bought from a foreigner.

As you can see, things get too complicated and no one can really see all the tangents and possible outcomes. But you can't assume a fatalistic possition doing nothing because everything will bring an ill consequence because that's... well, that is just cowardice, and that doesn't help anyone.

That is my point all along. You act freely, but take responsabilty for what you do. If your free will resulted in a third party's damage, then you must do something to compensate.

- The Jaguar

I have received criticism as somewhat of a radical liberalist, but here's my contribution for the League to judge.

There are two main of my behaviour. The 1st one is Total Individual Freedom/Total Individual Responsability. That means we are free to think and act as we please, but in order to avoid tyranny or hypocresy you must take responsability for your actions.

And the 2nd axis is equality. I execise my freedom but I ackowledge you have the same right. That leads me to acknowledge you as an equal and I come to a reasoning that goes like this: I don't want you to harm me, so I'm not going to harm you either; and we both understand that.

I know that sounds a bit utopic, but I do apply it on a daily basis as far as I can. Speaking in realistic terms, it is possible to achieve such a society, but that can only happen through freethinking education.

I am sorry I do not understand what you are saying. Do you mean a totaly free, totaly resposible and totaly egalitarian society? if that is the case yes it sounds great but as I pointed out earlier; Are we capable of such a society given our limited capacities as individuals? that is; How can I know that I,´m not harming anyone by my actions if my experience is limited to mi immediate environment?

Now, I quoted Nemesiah because I have bones to pick up with him/her. Your analogy is flawed because it is fatalistic. You are assuming, for example, that a termite does the same damage to a house than an elephant in an otherwise equal escenario.

I do not see how it is fatalistic perhaps you could elaborate on that. I'm not saying that a termite does the same damage as an elephant; following your analogy what I'm saying is that even though it doesn,´t look like a single termite can harm a house, the damage it causes added to the damage the other termites cause WILL bring down the house and furthering your analogy the house will come down on the termites killing them even though all they did was feeding themselves.

You could go to the furthest point and say that your existance is taking up the space someone else might need to exist and that would make us all murderers.

No, that is wrong; that doesn,´t make you a murderer since you didnt murder anyone. It will however make your quality of life and that of the other people suffer since resources are not infinite.

Now, I liked the fact that you picked up and environmental issue, because I happen to be a environmental engineer by trade, and I can tell you that if you expect to do something without causing an impact on the world, that's never gonna happen.

Right, but I can hope to reduce my carbon print, and I can hope that my actions upset as few lives as possible.

You could argue that since animal respiration emits carbon dioxide, we are all killing ourselves for the simple fact of breathing. But that's not true. Harm to life forms and the environment cames also from natural sources. A volcanic eruption causes a great deal of acute pollution, but you can't say volcanoes are destroying the planet because ultimately the environment has ways to deal with such damages, ways to clean and repair itself.

Animal respiration emits cabon dioxide however plants proces that stuff into oxigen, up to a point, their capacity is not limitless. Yes there are natural fenomena that cause harm however our poluting activities are not natural and cannot be repaired by the environment, for example some kinds of detergent that do not get separated from water by evaporation and polute the environment irreversibly. We do not have the right to screw the environment of ALL the species.

Earthquakes which cause thousands of deaths are natural happenings. Extinction of species are natural happenings as well.

Yes as stated above death happens and tragedies happen; I dont see how this realtes to individual responsability, Are you trying to imply that since nature kils we might as well kill also?

Now, back on the environment. Let's take the example of hybrid cars. I haven't checked the last numbers but I think thay save up to 60-70% in fuel. That sounds great doesn't it? Well, but the thing is that in order to fabricate the electronical compartments it requires minning. And ore minning is one of the contributors of the worst kind of toxic wastes. Does that mean hybrid cars are bad? No, they are a better option than regular cars but they are not perfect because nothing in world is perfect.

Yes hybrid cars are not perfect, the question is; Can,´t we find a way to build a society that forefits the need for cars? Are cars and integral part of human life?

When it comes to the environment, we need to understand that no matter what we do, we affect it. The ethical thing to do is look for alternative ways of doing things that result in less damage, on one hand, and try to restore the loss, on the other.

Yes; and this has to come from the conviction that people are responsible for their actions AND the repercutions of their actions.

Finally, in order for the progression of consequenses you wrote to happen, you are not considering magnitude. The simple chain of logical events doesn't sustain itself, in this case, because you are escalating magnitudes in the results but not on the causes.

No, what happens is that you WANT to fali to acknowledge that individuals are responsible for their actions; sure MY driing my car is not sending troops to Irak (though the "combat" troops are supposed to leave shortly); the consuption of gasoline of ALL car drives is what sends soldiers to murder innocents to steal their oil; however MY driving makes me part of that war, the chain of cause - effect is there even if you do not want to acknowledge it.

Economy is build so it can absorb the damage made by some people who chose to buy a foreign car, for example, the same way the environment has a certain level of tolerance to impacts. You buy the cheap foreign car, for example, and carpool so the damage to the national economy is lessed: instead of you and your buddies buying four cheap foreing car, you buy just one. You can argue that will damage the other contry's economy. But you are not considering that cheap car is sold in more countries, and that the price of products is designed to get a profit even without selling all the items. You also forget to consider that your own country may make cheap cars to sell in other countries to compensate for the cheap ones you bought from a foreigner.

I do not care for the well being of the corporations theselves, what I want Is that my money stays in my country and helps the society I live in, The cheaper car might seem like a good choice for me but if we always act acording to our own interest instead of society we end up favouring the powerful and harmig the poor; for example the current unemployment crysis in the USA since coorporactions acting for their own good sent carr producing factories abroad so they could make the cars cheaper sell them cheaper (still at a higher profit rate) so that more people could buy them; this however left many americans unemployed how are now costing the government and thus society money; in resume the company owners made better for themselves while the workers got screwed.

As you can see, things get too complicated and no one can really see all the tangents and possible outcomes. But you can't assume a fatalistic possition doing nothing because everything will bring an ill consequence because that's... well, that is just cowardice, and that doesn't help anyone.

My point exactly; since no single person can see all the outcomes of his / her actions are we to asume that we are free to do whatever we want? I think not. You are right that innaction is not an option (well, it is but not a productive one), however we can try to change things for the better, and understanding the ramifications of your actions is the best way to find alternatives that do less harm to the environment and others.

That is my point all along. You act freely, but take responsabilty for what you do. If your free will resulted in a third party's damage, then you must do something to compensate.

No; you must not do something to compensate; you must stop doing what harms the third party (as long as this doesn't conflict with your ability to survive, and by this I mean eat, not survive as a corporation with a 10% yearly grouth). To think that you can "compensate" for the oil murders of Irak, or the copper murders of chile is crazy; people MUST stop doing those things that harm others, not trying to compensate for the damage done once they got what they wanted; and people MUST understnd that their actions have ramifications and that their responsability expands to those ramifications, not just their immediate suroundings in space and / or time.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

We should perhaps make a clarification between positive and negative freedoms:

Positive freedoms are freedoms given (suffrage, etc.)
Negative freedoms are interferences withheld (First Amendment, etc.)
Keep in mind please that these are not moral distinctions, negative freedoms are not bad on account of being negative.

While ultimately serving the same function, that of increasing freedom, these two can have very different styles, and both can be taken to excess. The American Civil War, for instance, encompasses (among other things) a struggle between to negative freedom to own slaves, and the positive freedom not to be a slave.


I propose, therefore, that freedom is best served by an optimal combination of these two elements; and that an imbalance in either direction would be a detriment to freedom as a whole.

It is not then that there is ever too much freedom, but rather that freedom might become asymmetrical.


An anticipated objection would be, of course, that what constitutes an 'optimal combination' is largely subjective; and, I confess, I would probably have to concede this point. Like 'health' this constitutes a vague and oft-shifting meaning.