David Starner wrote: > Not merely a "religious" objection? Why should your objection to injuring > persons & property be treated any different from a Jew's objection to his > code being used for non-kosher foods or an animal right's person's > objection to his code being used to hurt or imprison animals, or a > Communist's objection to his code being used to support capitalist society? > (The Communist would certainly argue that capitalist society has far more > negative and long term effects then the immediate things you're worried > about.) If one of those is free, why shouldn't all of them be?
Consider the extension of this argument beyond the area of DFSG, into the realm of general human society. (If this appears to be drifting too far off-topic from Debian-Legal, I apologize, but I think considering broader contexts may inform our understanding of this rather more limited one.) Is the only free society one which is completely lawless? That is, does a rule of law, by itself, contradict the idea of liberty? Certainly, I believe that an arbitrary regime, which restricts people in their activities without regard to whether such cause injury to persons or property, is unfree at least to the extent that it exceeds such bound. A law which restrains one from the private exercise of his religious belief, whether that includes abstinence or attendance of some duty, is an unjust law. But a law which prohibits and provides penalties for murder does not deny liberty, rather it expands the liberty of the individual by ensuring a greater respect for his right to live. Cannot the DFSG be considered in similar terms - that an arbitrary restriction upon liberty of use must be disqualifying, yet a restriction for the purpose of ensuring respect for life and property may be not only allowed but in certain cases even encouraged?
