|
teph,
the entire range of "freedoms" we have are conditional and extend only to the boundary in which their uncircumscribed expression impinges on a "freedom from" of others. This is how our laws are laid out. Those who live in close proximity to others, for example, are proscribed from exercising their untrammeled expression because doing so is perceived and interpreted as a burden to their neighbors.
Also, to use MrSelfDestruct's example above - he is allowing drug (marijuana) legalization except while driving or using heavy machinery - which seems reasonable to him, I believe. But how many parents would accept their childrens' teachers being high in the classroom? This is just the first such example that came to mind here. There are as many similar examples regarding every "freedom" as there are individual ideas of freedom vis-a-vis responsibility - individual rights vis-a-vis the rights of others.
The freedom to have access to pornography - to use another popular example - butts right up against the desire others may have to avoid being exposed to porn in public or via child accessible channels. Again, this is simply one more example of the larger situation that affects all personal freedoms.
Using this sort of thinking, I'm sure you can see the implications. The result, as always in the polis, is sets of legislated limits on personal freedom, such as we see today. Each rule and regulation is always open to additional legislation and judicial review, of course. So it goes.
The proponents of more personal freedom have only a relativistic position - one that must be balanced with social responsibility as decided upon by the processes of government. Libertarianism is a set of one-sided solutions and does not provide any sort of politically viable program.
__________________
create evolution
|