Can we talk about "freedom," please?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Recently, there have been protests in Canada (resulting in the invocation of an Emergencies Act), with similar protests happening elsewhere around the world. The COVID-19 seems to have tested us in ways we perhaps never anticipated -- but alas, here it is, anticipated or not, and we have to deal with it.

Americans, probably more than anybody else on earth (I could be wrong) really do think that freedom or liberty is everything. Heck, New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die!" That seems pretty definitive.

So, "Freedom" must be a good thing, right? But I have to ask -- can it ever get ugly?

The last (retired) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote that "liberty, when misconstrued as licence to do an say whatever one wants, can serve as a cloak for actions that harm others." I have to admit, I found that pretty powerful stuff.

Is "freedom" absolute? Isn't it true that, living in a social matrix, my exercise of freedom can interfere with yours? And if it the answer is "yes," is it not the business of government to set out (as much as possible) where the lines can be drawn? I mean, they may not always get it right, but in a democracy (and one with a constitution, as in the US and Canada), government must eventually answer to the people, and the courts have the responsibility to determine where government has exceeded its authority within the constraints of that constitution.

So, can it ever be okay for governments to mandate things like vaccinations or mask-wearing, where these can be reasonably seen to set limits that allow us to live together, peacefully and with the hope of prosperity for all?

 

[The Hammer]

Freedom comes with a responsibility to act. If one does not embrace the responsibility, they lose the freedom.

 

[Kooky]

In an unequal and propertarian society, "freedom" is necessarily the freedom of the powerful and wealthy to oppress the powerless and the poor.

Consequentially, liberty for all can only arise out of an egalitarian society, free from hierarchical and oppressive structures such as property and capitalism.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

In an unequal and propertarian society, "freedom" is necessarily the freedom of the powerful and wealthy to oppress the powerless and the poor.

Consequentially, liberty for all can only arise out of an egalitarian society, free from hierarchical and oppressive structures such as property and capitalism.

Show where, since we evolved from primates, that are extremely hierarchical, we are not biochemically hardwired for hierarchy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Freedom comes with a responsibility to act. If one does not embrace the responsibility, they lose the freedom.

Okay, but how would you deal with the questions of masks or vaccines? (And I agree, those are two very different things, and the answers may by, perhaps should be, very different).

"I don't want to wear a mask in a crowded market-place, but science and government have said that masks protect other people." What is my responsibility now?

Vaccines have a very similar raison d'etre, but because they are invasive (injecting substances into one's body), what then is my responsibility?

In the latter case, perhaps you might consider that, while government may not be constitutionally able to tell you what you must be injected with, it may be able to tell you where you can and can't go if you have or haven't. Is that reasonable?

Let me provide a bit of background. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives us a lot of rights and freedoms -- but before it does so, it has the preface that these rights and freedoms, as precious as they are, are not absolute, and can be limited providing the limits are "reasonable" and can be "justified in a free and democratic society."

 

[The Hammer]

"I don't want to wear a mask in a crowded market-place, but science and government have said that mask protect other people." What is my responsibility now?

Vaccines have a very similar raison d'etre, but because they are invasive (infecting substances into one's body), what then is my responsibility?

In my opinion in these instances, it's a citizens right to do what is best for the majority, as opposed to the individual, because community health takes precedence over individual rights/safety.

The government can and does have a right at times to make citizens do things they may not fully understand why or agree with. But that has to be balanced with a respectable government that will balance the needs of the many.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my opinion in these instances, it's a citizens right to do what is best for the majority, as opposed to the individual, because community health takes precedence over individual rights/safety.

The government can and does have a right at times to make citizens do things they may not fully understand why or agree with. But that has to be balanced with a respectable government that will balance the needs of the many.

Great answer!

And sometimes the choices that governments make -- where to draw the line between what you are free to do and not -- can be tough. And we may all disagree (as we so often do). But in societies like the US, Canada, much of Europe and elsewhere, citizens who disagree have access to the ballot box, or where it's a more immediate concern, the courts.

 

[fantome profane]

Recently, there have been protests in Canada (resulting in the invocation of an Emergencies Act), with similar protests happening elsewhere around the world. The COVID-19 seems to have tested us in ways we perhaps never anticipated -- but alas, here it is, anticipated or not, and we have to deal with it.

Americans, probably more than anybody else on earth (I could be wrong) really do think that freedom or liberty is everything. Heck, New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die!" That seems pretty definitive.

So, "Freedom" must be a good thing, right? But I have to ask -- can it ever get ugly?

The last (retired) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote that "liberty, when misconstrued as licence to do an say whatever one wants, can serve as a cloak for actions that harm others." I have to admit, I found that pretty powerful stuff.

Is "freedom" absolute? Isn't it true that, living in a social matrix, my exercise of freedom can interfere with yours? And if it the answer is "yes," is it not the business of government to set out (as much as possible) where the lines can be drawn? I mean, they may not always get it right, but in a democracy (and one with a constitution, as in the US and Canada), government must eventually answer to the people, and the courts have the responsibility to determine where government has exceeded its authority within the constraints of that constitution.

So, can it ever be okay for governments to mandate things like vaccinations or mask-wearing, where these can be reasonably seen to set limits that allow us to live together, peacefully and with the hope of prosperity for all?

I agree. I have a very zen attitude that anything taken to he extreme turns into the opposite. The result of “absolute freedom” would be that no one would be able to do the things they want to do. In reality to have the most possible freedom we need to have the right balance of laws and restrictions and mandates.

 

[Stevicus]

Recently, there have been protests in Canada (resulting in the invocation of an Emergencies Act), with similar protests happening elsewhere around the world. The COVID-19 seems to have tested us in ways we perhaps never anticipated -- but alas, here it is, anticipated or not, and we have to deal with it.

Americans, probably more than anybody else on earth (I could be wrong) really do think that freedom or liberty is everything. Heck, New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die!" That seems pretty definitive.

So, "Freedom" must be a good thing, right? But I have to ask -- can it ever get ugly?

The last (retired) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote that "liberty, when misconstrued as licence to do an say whatever one wants, can serve as a cloak for actions that harm others." I have to admit, I found that pretty powerful stuff.

Is "freedom" absolute? Isn't it true that, living in a social matrix, my exercise of freedom can interfere with yours? And if it the answer is "yes," is it not the business of government to set out (as much as possible) where the lines can be drawn? I mean, they may not always get it right, but in a democracy (and one with a constitution, as in the US and Canada), government must eventually answer to the people, and the courts have the responsibility to determine where government has exceeded its authority within the constraints of that constitution.

So, can it ever be okay for governments to mandate things like vaccinations or mask-wearing, where these can be reasonably seen to set limits that allow us to live together, peacefully and with the hope of prosperity for all?

As long as it doesn't harm anyone or otherwise violate their rights, I believe I should be free to do whatever I want.

When it comes to vaccinations or mask-wearing or other public health concerns, that may be a gray area. When weighing up society's interests, a number of different factors need to be considered. How much of a risk is reasonable, and what kind of security/safety measures would be considered reasonable?

 

[sun rise]

In a society, there have to be limits to freedom. Otherwise someone could violate any law they don't like with impunity to name just one thing.

So freedom has to exist between utter anarchy on one hand and total repression such as China under Xi on the other.

@The Hammer 's point about responsibility is one I share but I take it further. To think we are utterly isolated individuals is a myth. We are connected with each other as members of society and more.

Drawing the line is messy, but the minimal principle is that someone's right to "swing their fist" ends where my nose begins.

 

[F1fan]

Freedom comes with a responsibility to act. If one does not embrace the responsibility, they lose the freedom.

I was going to say something similar. The discussions I hear that ignore responsibility are gravely shallow. The real issue is how members of a society can be responsible each other and to the collective. I think part of the problem with "collective" is how right wing rhetoric see this an implying socialism. It's become an excuse my some to be irresponsible and anti-social.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, can it ever be okay for governments to mandate things like vaccinations or mask-wearing, where these can be reasonably seen to set limits that allow us to live together, peacefully and with the hope of prosperity for all?

Yes, it might be the way forward, sometimes.

Is "freedom" absolute? Isn't it true that, living in a social matrix, my exercise of freedom can interfere with yours? And if it the answer is "yes," is it not the business of government to set out (as much as possible) where the lines can be drawn? I mean, they may not always get it right, but in a democracy (and one with a constitution, as in the US and Canada), government must eventually answer to the people, and the courts have the responsibility to determine where government has exceeded its authority within the constraints of that constitution.

No, it isn't absolute in my opinion. I like the idea that we strive towards a more perfect union. We should never declare that it is finished and perfected. There's no perfect list of laws that will guarantee success.

Also, I believe some chaos is necessary for a more perfect union. I think that we have to keep changing things. If things stay the same for too long then an instability develops. I think it is necessary for the functioning of society. I don't like it, but I think we have to do it. Even the balancing of rights and freedoms occasionally must change.

 

[Audie]

Recently, there have been protests in Canada (resulting in the invocation of an Emergencies Act), with similar protests happening elsewhere around the world. The COVID-19 seems to have tested us in ways we perhaps never anticipated -- but alas, here it is, anticipated or not, and we have to deal with it.

Americans, probably more than anybody else on earth (I could be wrong) really do think that freedom or liberty is everything. Heck, New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die!" That seems pretty definitive.

So, "Freedom" must be a good thing, right? But I have to ask -- can it ever get ugly?

The last (retired) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote that "liberty, when misconstrued as licence to do an say whatever one wants, can serve as a cloak for actions that harm others." I have to admit, I found that pretty powerful stuff.

Is "freedom" absolute? Isn't it true that, living in a social matrix, my exercise of freedom can interfere with yours? And if it the answer is "yes," is it not the business of government to set out (as much as possible) where the lines can be drawn? I mean, they may not always get it right, but in a democracy (and one with a constitution, as in the US and Canada), government must eventually answer to the people, and the courts have the responsibility to determine where government has exceeded its authority within the constraints of that constitution.

So, can it ever be okay for governments to mandate things like vaccinations or mask-wearing, where these can be reasonably seen to set limits that allow us to live together, peacefully and with the hope of prosperity for all?

In China one is free to do many things that
could get you a stiff jail sentence in the
West.
As anyone who has spent time in China knows.

 

[Nimos]

Recently, there have been protests in Canada (resulting in the invocation of an Emergencies Act), with similar protests happening elsewhere around the world. The COVID-19 seems to have tested us in ways we perhaps never anticipated -- but alas, here it is, anticipated or not, and we have to deal with it.

Americans, probably more than anybody else on earth (I could be wrong) really do think that freedom or liberty is everything. Heck, New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die!" That seems pretty definitive.

So, "Freedom" must be a good thing, right? But I have to ask -- can it ever get ugly?

The last (retired) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote that "liberty, when misconstrued as licence to do an say whatever one wants, can serve as a cloak for actions that harm others." I have to admit, I found that pretty powerful stuff.

Is "freedom" absolute? Isn't it true that, living in a social matrix, my exercise of freedom can interfere with yours? And if it the answer is "yes," is it not the business of government to set out (as much as possible) where the lines can be drawn? I mean, they may not always get it right, but in a democracy (and one with a constitution, as in the US and Canada), government must eventually answer to the people, and the courts have the responsibility to determine where government has exceeded its authority within the constraints of that constitution.

So, can it ever be okay for governments to mandate things like vaccinations or mask-wearing, where these can be reasonably seen to set limits that allow us to live together, peacefully and with the hope of prosperity for all?

I think one of the huge problems that the world is facing is misinformation or fake news. Everything is up for questioning in todays society, whether its established knowledge such as the whether the Earth is spherical or not, some believe that the moon is fake not even whether we landed on it or not, but that it is actually fake!! And then you have the Covid thing, which is equally as crazy in my opinion, millions and millions of people have been vaccinated, yet you have people running around complaining and claiming that its not real, its to take away their freedom or what other nonsense excuse they have. And I bet you, that sooner or later if it hasn't already happened, some idiot will claim that the war in Ukraine is fake as well and you will have 1000s of people getting fool by that as well.

People want freedom, but as someone already said it requires one to be responsible, how on Earth is that going to work, when its obvious that even in the middle of a pandemic and people are literally dying in front of their eyes, they think its a conspiracy and refuse to be responsible. This has nothing to do with freedom or not, but plain an simple stupidity, some peoples complete lack and capability to think critical and rational, believing every nonsense they are told, demanding absolutely no evidence for any claim, because everything flies with them. This is why people like Putin can fool a whole country and fill them with lies, why people are so easily convince by antivaxer and flat earthers and what other crazy stuff people buy into. I have said it before and will do it again, people need to learn to think critical and be skeptical, its not for fun that scientists value these things, because it is the only defense against being fooled.

I don't give a rats *** about someone feeling their freedom is getting violated, because they are to damn stupid to add two and two together and therefore feel its their damn right to go around and potentially kill others, I have no respect for that. Fine if people have a condition that make them unable to get the vaccine, that is what it is. But otherwise I don't freaking care about what they believe and don't believe.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So, "Freedom" must be a good thing, right? But I have to ask -- can it ever get ugly?

The last (retired) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote that "liberty, when misconstrued as licence to do an say whatever one wants, can serve as a cloak for actions that harm others." I have to admit, I found that pretty powerful stuff.

The Baha'i Writings offer thoughts about liberty, it needs to be balanced, these quotes are if liberty is unbalanced,

"Consider the pettiness of men's minds. They ask for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths of ignorance."

"Know ye that the embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. That which beseemeth man is submission unto such restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and wickedness."

"Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is the Reckoner, the All-Knowing."

Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 335-336

Then the balance is this;

"The liberty that profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the dominion of earth and heaven.....

.....True liberty consisteth in man's submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it....

....We approve of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, are the All-Knowing.....

.....Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty."

Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 335

This is to me, as a Baha'i, is entirely logical, as in the past Faiths given by God, it has been shown that abiding by the laws given by God, is the way to unity and the only way to avoid conflict.

Regards Tony

 

[We Never Know]

Recently, there have been protests in Canada (resulting in the invocation of an Emergencies Act), with similar protests happening elsewhere around the world. The COVID-19 seems to have tested us in ways we perhaps never anticipated -- but alas, here it is, anticipated or not, and we have to deal with it.

Americans, probably more than anybody else on earth (I could be wrong) really do think that freedom or liberty is everything. Heck, New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die!" That seems pretty definitive.

So, "Freedom" must be a good thing, right? But I have to ask -- can it ever get ugly?

The last (retired) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote that "liberty, when misconstrued as licence to do an say whatever one wants, can serve as a cloak for actions that harm others." I have to admit, I found that pretty powerful stuff.

Is "freedom" absolute? Isn't it true that, living in a social matrix, my exercise of freedom can interfere with yours? And if it the answer is "yes," is it not the business of government to set out (as much as possible) where the lines can be drawn? I mean, they may not always get it right, but in a democracy (and one with a constitution, as in the US and Canada), government must eventually answer to the people, and the courts have the responsibility to determine where government has exceeded its authority within the constraints of that constitution.

So, can it ever be okay for governments to mandate things like vaccinations or mask-wearing, where these can be reasonably seen to set limits that allow us to live together, peacefully and with the hope of prosperity for all?

 

[icehorse]

In an unequal and propertarian society, "freedom" is necessarily the freedom of the powerful and wealthy to oppress the powerless and the poor.

Consequentially, liberty for all can only arise out of an egalitarian society, free from hierarchical and oppressive structures such as property and capitalism.

false dilemma, try again.

 

[icehorse]

Recently, there have been protests in Canada (resulting in the invocation of an Emergencies Act), with similar protests happening elsewhere around the world. The COVID-19 seems to have tested us in ways we perhaps never anticipated -- but alas, here it is, anticipated or not, and we have to deal with it.

Americans, probably more than anybody else on earth (I could be wrong) really do think that freedom or liberty is everything. Heck, New Hampshire's motto is "Live Free or Die!" That seems pretty definitive.

So, "Freedom" must be a good thing, right? But I have to ask -- can it ever get ugly?

The last (retired) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada recently wrote that "liberty, when misconstrued as licence to do an say whatever one wants, can serve as a cloak for actions that harm others." I have to admit, I found that pretty powerful stuff.

Is "freedom" absolute? Isn't it true that, living in a social matrix, my exercise of freedom can interfere with yours? And if it the answer is "yes," is it not the business of government to set out (as much as possible) where the lines can be drawn? I mean, they may not always get it right, but in a democracy (and one with a constitution, as in the US and Canada), government must eventually answer to the people, and the courts have the responsibility to determine where government has exceeded its authority within the constraints of that constitution.

So, can it ever be okay for governments to mandate things like vaccinations or mask-wearing, where these can be reasonably seen to set limits that allow us to live together, peacefully and with the hope of prosperity for all?

I would say it's frequently the case that freedom is a zero sum game. My freedom might well negatively impact you. E.g. If I want free speech, then that speech might be used to offend you. Another example, we don't have the freedom to murder.

So it seems the trick is to balance freedoms, not too few, not too many.

 

[Father Heathen]

Freedom doesn't/shouldn't mean free to limit the next guy's freedom, or the right to limit the next guys rights, etc. Freedom should be limited to prevent from victimizing or jeopardizing the innocent. It's interesting it hear those whining about masks and vaccinations being silent about stops signs, speed limits, and traffic lights, as they too are a limit on freedom, but they're there to prevent citizens from causing harm to one another by failing to practice responsibility.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It’s hardly surprising that culture which venerates materialism, and places personal liberty above all other values, is a culture where selfish behaviour flourishes.