If you live alone in the desert, you're perfectly at liberty to grab an automatic weapon and spin around in a circle while holding down the trigger. You won't harm anybody.
You don't have that liberty when you live around people, even under conditions that aren't that crowded. If there's a realistic chance your bullet will hit somebody or somebody's property, you can kiss that liberty goodbye. And say hello to a jail cell if you disagree.
Freedom has always been bounded by the rights of other people. Only a sociopath would maintain that there's such a thing as absolute liberty. As the world gets more crowded, your "locus of absolute freedom" necessarily shrinks as it's pressed in on all sides by everybody else's liberty.
If we need to adjust our response to reality to hang on to liberty, we sure as hell should do so. Demanding that reality stop changing and return to what worked for us in a bygone era is simply foolish. As Frank points out, a solution that was brilliant two centuries ago isn't working so well in the early 21st century, and if we don't adjust how our government works, we'll surely lose our liberty and everything else.
Flame » in reply to Re: The problem is definitely succession
The definition of liberty changes in a crowded society
The whole thread (29 posts)
- enlightened absolutism
- Re: enlightened absolutism
- Here's the deal:
- Yes, there's the rub...
- Self-government
- It is fairly simple.
- Doesn't seem like you read Frank's post
- The fundamental principles haven't changed.
- Doesn't seem like you read Frank's post
- Yes, there's the rub...
- Great post and topic.