|
|
|
| Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 03:33 PM EST |
What I like about your definition of freedom is that it frames permissible acts
well; we should not be permitted to make choices that have certain impacts on
others, such as murder, fraud, etc.
However, a problem with our government has been the use of this freedom
definition as justification for continued regulatory expansion into peoples'
lives. We are hard pressed to make any decisions that do not impact others.
One argument for fighting lotteries is that there will be some individuals that
will irresponsibly waste every dollar on tickets, with adverse affects on future
and family.
The problem with this definition, for me, is that my definition of freedom is
that I am allowed to make choices in my pursuit of happiness even if they are
suboptimal... within limits. Fraud, murder, creating a situation that could
impact safety or the environment, malicious activity, and so forth, are not
permissible. Outside of the major limits, though (or inside of the minor
limits), we can have no freedom if we cannot choice our course in the pursuit of
happiness.
HOWEVER, by mentioning Stanislaw Lem, you bring back a memory of a book that I
have not seen in decades and cannot find in my collection. At least, I think
Lem wrote this one. This was a book of book reviews for books that did not
exist. Am I thinking of the correct author?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
