>
> > There are no socially positive uses of something that limits
> > someones freedom.
>
> So you advocate that there should be no law or mechanism that
> should limit my ability to murder you, for example?
>
> Law does not dictate what is moral or not, nor does it dictate what
> freedom is. Slavery was legal you know. If you are allowed to
> dictate if I can live or not, you are restricting my freedom to decide
> what I can do with my life.
People focus far too much on their rights, and far too little on their
responsibilities. When championing freedom, they often fail to
recognize that all decisions and acts have consequences.
While all humans are free moral agents, every choice you make has
consequences. So long as those consequences are restricted to yourself,
you are free to make whatever choices you desire. Once the consequences
of your decisions begin to affect other people, you are no longer free.
You are constrained.
Laws exist because some people cannot be trusted to follow principles.
If people were more concerned about their responsibilities, they would
adhere more closely to principles and laws would be unnecessary.
>From that standpoint then, limiting the freedom of decision or action to
only those decisions or acts that do not bring negative consequences
upon other persons is socially positive.
-={C}=-
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
L4-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
