Living in a free society also imposes obligations. Other people must be taken into consideration.
I’m also glad that I don’t live in a community where individuals get to decide what rules they should follow on the basis of some nebulous concept of personal freedom.
There’s nothing nebulous here. I offer perhaps you are arguing against a ‘stereotypical American’ who wants ‘muh Freedom!’ and then votes for people who restrict freedom. That is not me.
I like freedom, but sometimes those obligations are part of freedom. There’s a famous quote- “My right to swing my face ends where the other man’s face begins.” I believe this a good underpinning for a free society.
For example if I want to buy an apartment building, I should be able to do that. If I want to store explosives in the basement of that building, I shouldn’t be able to do that- yes it restricts my freedom to use my building’s basement as I see fit, but storing explosives in an apartment also somewhat takes away the freedom of the people living in it to life and safety.
And I can’t take something that doesn’t belong to me, because that takes away the freedom of the person who owns it.
Or take seatbelts. I agree with the regulation that cars are required to have seatbelts, airbags, ABS brakes, and a bunch of other safety equipment. I don’t believe that people should be required to wear seatbelts (or helmets on bikes/motorcycles), because that’s their body their choice. HOWEVER, I also believe that if there are multiple occupants in the car, all should be required to wear seatbelts, because in a crash their body could become a projectile that’d injure the other occupants of the vehicle.
Point is- restrict people from doing things that unreasonably endanger others, but permit people to endanger themselves if they choose.
I’m also STRONGLY against gerrymandering, because that takes away the freedom of the people to choose leaders who accurately represent them and their interests, and instead allows whoever’s drawing the map to determine or significantly increase the election’s outcome, a power that ideally nobody would have. I would argue if you claim to love freedom, but you have no problem with gerrymandering, then you don’t really understand the meaning of freedom and you are not a patriot, you are a parrot repeating what the teevee told you to say.
Anyway- applied here.
I believe if an ADULT chooses to consume a potentially harmful product, knowing the risks of it, they should be allowed to. That is how free society works with things like alcohol, caffeine, and anything else that can be psychologically addictive like marijuana, pornography, sex, video games, TV, lottery tickets, etc. Any attempt to draw a line in here is simple hypocrisy- if you can drink alcohol and trash your liver, but not smoke and trash your lungs, why? Etc.
So if you can get mesquite vapes, but not cherry vapes or menthol vapes, why? Because some asshat regulator said these flavors might appeal more to kids? Even though it’s already illegal to sell them to kids?
No, that is denying the freedom of adults to vape the flavors they want, based on a nebulous idea that kids might get them. That’s not freedom, that’s arbitrary restriction.
I like your nuanced position, but I completely disagree with it, and have already articulated as to why.
I don’t believe that you are a stereotypical American, but the whole “freedom thing” is a stereotypical American thing. I’m Australian and I believe that I have many more freedoms than most Americans. For instance, your country puts traval restrictions on you that we would never tolerate. I can travel to Cuba, or just about any country in the world freely. Same as most other Western countries. But we don’t claim to have special freedom privileges. On the other hand, Australia has one of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the world. Lots of red tape and lots of regulation. However, by and large nobody minds because the trade-off is a mostly one of safety. The US has a gun homicide rate of about 50 times more than Australia, per capita. The US has 17 times Australia’s gun deaths over all. So, trading off some freedoms has a community benefit and we believe it is worth it. No Australian government has ever won office with a policy of undoing gun laws. Some freedoms are just not worth it. As to your seatbelt example, you deciding not to wear one might impact upon people other than yourself. Someone has to endure the trauma of scraping your body off the road. Someone has to cart your broken arse off to hospital. Someone might have to care for you for years. Possibly forever. Your freedom to not wear a seatbelt will probably impact on others freedom not to have to deal with your silly decision. And so it goes. As I said, the only country in the world who constantly bangs on about freedom, forbids what can be read in so many schools, the right of women to control their bodies, how a president who fails to garner a majority of the popular votes can still get ‘elected’, and so many more anti-freedoms. Your country also imposes it’s will on so many other countries. That’s freedom US style.
To me the Libertarian position is fundamentally selfish. It pretends to be one of freedom, but if you live in a society one must tolerate restrictions, large and small. Or, go live a hermit existence somewhere so whatever folly you choose to celebrate has zero impact upon your fellow citizens.
That’s just my opinion, of course, you are free to disagree.
There’s nothing nebulous here. I offer perhaps you are arguing against a ‘stereotypical American’ who wants ‘muh Freedom!’ and then votes for people who restrict freedom. That is not me.
I like freedom, but sometimes those obligations are part of freedom. There’s a famous quote- “My right to swing my face ends where the other man’s face begins.” I believe this a good underpinning for a free society.
For example if I want to buy an apartment building, I should be able to do that. If I want to store explosives in the basement of that building, I shouldn’t be able to do that- yes it restricts my freedom to use my building’s basement as I see fit, but storing explosives in an apartment also somewhat takes away the freedom of the people living in it to life and safety.
And I can’t take something that doesn’t belong to me, because that takes away the freedom of the person who owns it.
Or take seatbelts. I agree with the regulation that cars are required to have seatbelts, airbags, ABS brakes, and a bunch of other safety equipment. I don’t believe that people should be required to wear seatbelts (or helmets on bikes/motorcycles), because that’s their body their choice. HOWEVER, I also believe that if there are multiple occupants in the car, all should be required to wear seatbelts, because in a crash their body could become a projectile that’d injure the other occupants of the vehicle.
Point is- restrict people from doing things that unreasonably endanger others, but permit people to endanger themselves if they choose.
I’m also STRONGLY against gerrymandering, because that takes away the freedom of the people to choose leaders who accurately represent them and their interests, and instead allows whoever’s drawing the map to determine or significantly increase the election’s outcome, a power that ideally nobody would have. I would argue if you claim to love freedom, but you have no problem with gerrymandering, then you don’t really understand the meaning of freedom and you are not a patriot, you are a parrot repeating what the teevee told you to say.
Anyway- applied here.
I believe if an ADULT chooses to consume a potentially harmful product, knowing the risks of it, they should be allowed to. That is how free society works with things like alcohol, caffeine, and anything else that can be psychologically addictive like marijuana, pornography, sex, video games, TV, lottery tickets, etc. Any attempt to draw a line in here is simple hypocrisy- if you can drink alcohol and trash your liver, but not smoke and trash your lungs, why? Etc.
So if you can get mesquite vapes, but not cherry vapes or menthol vapes, why? Because some asshat regulator said these flavors might appeal more to kids? Even though it’s already illegal to sell them to kids?
No, that is denying the freedom of adults to vape the flavors they want, based on a nebulous idea that kids might get them. That’s not freedom, that’s arbitrary restriction.
I like your nuanced position, but I completely disagree with it, and have already articulated as to why.
I don’t believe that you are a stereotypical American, but the whole “freedom thing” is a stereotypical American thing. I’m Australian and I believe that I have many more freedoms than most Americans. For instance, your country puts traval restrictions on you that we would never tolerate. I can travel to Cuba, or just about any country in the world freely. Same as most other Western countries. But we don’t claim to have special freedom privileges. On the other hand, Australia has one of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the world. Lots of red tape and lots of regulation. However, by and large nobody minds because the trade-off is a mostly one of safety. The US has a gun homicide rate of about 50 times more than Australia, per capita. The US has 17 times Australia’s gun deaths over all. So, trading off some freedoms has a community benefit and we believe it is worth it. No Australian government has ever won office with a policy of undoing gun laws. Some freedoms are just not worth it. As to your seatbelt example, you deciding not to wear one might impact upon people other than yourself. Someone has to endure the trauma of scraping your body off the road. Someone has to cart your broken arse off to hospital. Someone might have to care for you for years. Possibly forever. Your freedom to not wear a seatbelt will probably impact on others freedom not to have to deal with your silly decision. And so it goes. As I said, the only country in the world who constantly bangs on about freedom, forbids what can be read in so many schools, the right of women to control their bodies, how a president who fails to garner a majority of the popular votes can still get ‘elected’, and so many more anti-freedoms. Your country also imposes it’s will on so many other countries. That’s freedom US style.
To me the Libertarian position is fundamentally selfish. It pretends to be one of freedom, but if you live in a society one must tolerate restrictions, large and small. Or, go live a hermit existence somewhere so whatever folly you choose to celebrate has zero impact upon your fellow citizens.
That’s just my opinion, of course, you are free to disagree.