Then you've misunderstood me. I'm only saying that it may be necessary
for societies to limit the freedom of individual members to perform acts
that may result in unacceptable added cost or reduced freedom to other
members of that same society.
sure, that's perfectly consistent with the liberal idea.
The difficulties arise when you try to apply the limits fairly and how you
decide what unacceptable means. In the case you mentioned - bicycle
helmets - my response is that there are other activities which people take
part in which entail far greater costs to society, and these include
everyday activities such as eating the wrong type of food, smoking, drinking
too much and not taking enough exercise. Indeed, it has been shown that
enforcing the use of cycle helmets leads to a greater cost to society
because it reduces overall health levels.
So you have to be very careful deciding how and why you are going to limit
somebody's freedom, and be prepared for a fight. You have to be prepared to
justify limiting one activity as opposed to some other which may cause
similar harm to society, and you have to decide why you should stop with
that activity - why not ban all activities which entail a cost to society?
It's up to you to answer these questions as soon as you start proposing
limits on freedom.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
