Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I disagree.
|
To disagree is to misunderstand the meaning of absolute freedom. For example, if I have absolute freedom over my life---i.e. I am free to act any way I choose---then I may choose to ignore personal responsibility. However, absolute freedom doesn't exist on a practical level, which means that I am not unbound by personal responsibility. If I do not have that choice, then my freedom is not absolute; it is limited.
As a citizen of the state of Canada, of Ontario, and of Toronto, I am beholden to their laws and bylaws. However, these laws are in place as a way to establish such responsibility in people.
We don't have absolute freedom, nor would I want everyone to have it. Most of us appreciate the concept of law.
Quote:
|
a person has the absolute right, freedom, and liberty to preserve their own life. Self preservation is at the heart of right to life. It exists outside of the state nor does it require the state authority to acknowledge. It doesn't require anything but your own determination if your life is at risk.
|
A person does have the right to self-preservation (except in those deplorable states that practice capital punishment), but this does not mean a person has absolute freedom. This is only one aspect. Absolute freedom is the complete absence of restrictions on how one lives one's life.
Quote:
|
The US government was formed to protect the rights of the people and to provide fair and equitable opportunity for individuals to be free and prosper.
|
They used the concept of law to do so. This is not an environment of absolute freedom.
Quote:
|
I'm talking about the simple human trait that everyone knows right from wrong.
|
Is knowing right from wrong instinctual? How do we know for certain what is right and what is wrong? This doesn't sound like a natural state; it sounds more like a process.
The reason why I brought up the concept of absolute freedom in the first place was because you seemed to be disappointed in the idea of the social contract, which states that we forfeit complete liberty in exchange for a set of laws enforced by an authority, in most cases a government or set of governments.
You seem to dislike the idea of a government managing these laws, as though arresting someone for breaking a law and incarcerating them is an infringement of some kind of natural law. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. I'm just trying to suss out what your position is.
---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy
Any restraint, whether personal or social, impinges absolute freedom.
|
This is what I'm getting at. Laws and personal moral codes restrict freedom.