Cyclone Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Why is that when people are told they can't do something, take (steal) scrap metal from gardens, drink drive, smoke in public buildings... They refer back to democracy and freedom? Democracy isn't actually about freedom at all, it's about how you choose who's going to make the rules that restrict freedom, so lets cut that one loose straight away. But lets examine the "it's a free country" argument. Clearly it isn't... We have a whole heap of laws, you can't go around murdering people, robbing them, beating them up for example. These are all about protecting the person or property from the behaviour of someone else though. How about speeding, that's not quite as clear cut, but it's about protecting people from the potential risk of someone driving too fast. Tax law, now that's more interesting, that's about making it possible for the state to function and in exchange for tax we get access to services. But we don't all pay equal amounts and we don't all use the services equally. So anyway, going back to my point, if something is restricted in order to protect other people, what mileage do people expect to get out of an argument about freedom? Surely the freedom of people to not have something done to them (murdered, punched, gently poisoned by 2nd hand smoke) outweighs the freedom of someone else to do these things (murder, punch, smoke in public building)??? No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 ...that's rhetorical, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 ...that's rhetorical, yes? It ought to be, yet how many people demand they should have the "freedom" to break the laws they don't like - even while simultaneously demanding that lawbreakers should be dealt with extremely harshly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 No? Yes... Is it about all being treated equally (e.g. democratically), I was going to mention about civility but that's probably going a bit to far for most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 You are pretty much proving cyclones point. And what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 It ought to be, yet how many people demand they should have the "freedom" to break the laws they don't like - even while simultaneously demanding that lawbreakers should be dealt with extremely harshly? And that's what's wrong with the UK today. Everybody wants the law to apply to everyone else but themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 19, 2011 Author Share Posted August 19, 2011 ...that's rhetorical, yes? Well, I'm assuming that some people will disagree, probably those who've been told they can't do something any more because it hurts other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 19, 2011 Author Share Posted August 19, 2011 Yes... Is it about all being treated equally (e.g. democratically), I was going to mention about civility but that's probably going a bit to far for most. Democracy isn't about equal treatment, it's a way of selecting your government. We had a democracy in the UK when women didn't even have the vote, and anyone <18 is still treat differently to those >18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 19, 2011 Author Share Posted August 19, 2011 It ought to be, yet how many people demand they should have the "freedom" to break the laws they don't like - even while simultaneously demanding that lawbreakers should be dealt with extremely harshly? Is it just that quite a few people can't consider anything beyond themselves? So they look at the concept of freedom, say it should apply to themselves and ignore that it should also apply to everyone else and the compromises that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 they look at the concept of freedom, say it should apply to themselves and ignore that it should also apply to everyone else and the compromises that means. That is their misunderstanding, essentially. Freedom is quite limiting in most of its forms. It certainly isn't an "I can do what I want" idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.