> There are also many cases where increased freedom doesn’t limit other people’s freedom; for example my freedom to have consensual sexual relationships with whomever I choose doesn’t limit anyone else’s freedom.
A bit earlier in the article:
> Things like freedom or speech or religion can infringe on other people’s freedoms. If I say that all Jews should be kicked in the face whenever you see one this limits Jewish people’s freedom live a life without fear of being kicked in the face.
No, no. You already made the typical mistake. If I kick a jew in the face, I infringe on their freedom to live a life without actually getting kicked in the face. But if I say jews should be kicked in the face, I infringe on their freedom to live a life without fear of getting kicked in the face - a freedom, you may note, that libertarians don't actually believe in, because anyone with a smidgen of security mindset can see that it's completely exploitable.
For instance: you say your freedom to have consensual sexual relationships with whomever you want doesn't infringe my freedom, but what about my freedom to be free of fear about the gay agenda? What about my fear about the breakdown of society? My fear of the decline of traditional marriage?
Fear, as opposed to outcomes, does not need to be rational or grounded in reality. Once you acknowledge a right to be free from fear, you are able to justify any tradeoff. I say - no! There is no right to be free of fear. Everybody has the right to be safe, but nobody has the right to feel safe. Adjusting your feeling to reality is everyone's own responsibility. We must not allow people to abdicate the responsibility for their own feelings and create a guilt of others not to cause upset. A free society cannot and must not take responsibility for fears - only for outcomes. Always for outcomes! No jew should ever be kicked in the face, we are completely agreed. But society's obligation to protect Jewish rights ends at their cranium. What happens inside people's heads is nobody's business but their own - for good or for ill.
(Which is of course not to be understood as arguing against mental health services. One must be mentally healthy to be mentally responsible - if and exactly if.)
A bit earlier in the article:
> Things like freedom or speech or religion can infringe on other people’s freedoms. If I say that all Jews should be kicked in the face whenever you see one this limits Jewish people’s freedom live a life without fear of being kicked in the face.
No, no. You already made the typical mistake. If I kick a jew in the face, I infringe on their freedom to live a life without actually getting kicked in the face. But if I say jews should be kicked in the face, I infringe on their freedom to live a life without fear of getting kicked in the face - a freedom, you may note, that libertarians don't actually believe in, because anyone with a smidgen of security mindset can see that it's completely exploitable.
For instance: you say your freedom to have consensual sexual relationships with whomever you want doesn't infringe my freedom, but what about my freedom to be free of fear about the gay agenda? What about my fear about the breakdown of society? My fear of the decline of traditional marriage?
Fear, as opposed to outcomes, does not need to be rational or grounded in reality. Once you acknowledge a right to be free from fear, you are able to justify any tradeoff. I say - no! There is no right to be free of fear. Everybody has the right to be safe, but nobody has the right to feel safe. Adjusting your feeling to reality is everyone's own responsibility. We must not allow people to abdicate the responsibility for their own feelings and create a guilt of others not to cause upset. A free society cannot and must not take responsibility for fears - only for outcomes. Always for outcomes! No jew should ever be kicked in the face, we are completely agreed. But society's obligation to protect Jewish rights ends at their cranium. What happens inside people's heads is nobody's business but their own - for good or for ill.
(Which is of course not to be understood as arguing against mental health services. One must be mentally healthy to be mentally responsible - if and exactly if.)