Absolute freedom is freedom to tread upon others. It is also freedom to step on those who wish to step on you. Such is the Law of the Jungle. But to say that freedom doesn't real just because I can't exercise my freedom to rape children without infringing on their right to not be raped is absurd.
When a population is unarmed and helpless, it is not free. When a ruler is forced to see his subjects not as helpless livestock but as brethren to be taken seriously, the population is free.
When your every word is monitored and you must constantly stress about whether the things you say are party-approved, you are not free. When you can discuss whatever the fuck you want with whoever the fuck you want with no meddling by governments or corporations, you are free.
When you need to constantly ask yourself "Is this legal?" then you are not free. When you need only worry if your actions will cause harm, that is a sensible balance of freedom.
I'm not bluepilled on totalitarianism, I'm simply using the definition that everybody but you uses.
You're not wrong when you say that a vice-addicted moron is not free, but that isn't freedom -negative or
positive- if that's only because daddy government is preventing him from indulging them. Such a man doesn't have internal control. He probably doesn't even understand why he's not allowed thing so as soon as he gets the opportunity he's going to do thing. The only way he can truly have positive freedom is through wisdom. If he knows why thing is harmful then no amount of temptation would make him so much as bat an eye. At that stage, it becomes redundant to restrict negative freedom, no?
>The logical conclusion of putting freedom from all restraints in terms of morals, actions, beliefs and the like is degeneracy, plain and simple
Ever read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?
>Go live with niggers in the bush in Africa if you want "freedom" in the sense of no restraints
Reject civilization, return to monke. I'm down with that.
Are you retarded?
Message too long. Click
to view full text.