When does one person's freedom end and another person's freedom begin?

[Mounds]

Spin-off from the Drunk Driving thread.

So I'm thinking about some different scenarios in which you could ask this question. One that comes to mind is speeding. I can simply ignore the law and do whatever I want. If I'm questioned on it, I can just say that I'm a good enough driver and therefore I should be able to drive whatever speed I choose.
The problem I have with that scenario is that:

1. You are most likely over-estimating your own abilities.

and

2. Many of the things that happen on the road are outside of your control.

A tire blowout could send me flying. A deer cutting out in front of me could cause serious issues, especially on a single lane highway. Simply not paying attention for a moment could cause big problems.
To me, that's a infringement on the next person's freedom. It's simply unfair to the other people on the road.
How about speeding through a Playground Zone because I'm late for work? Sure, it's my life and by ignoring laws, I can do whatever I want. But am I infringing on the freedom of others? I think so. My convenient solution takes away the option of safety for the next person.
Remember that virtually no one will engage in dangerous behaviour without first minimizing the risks in their mind. I wonder if anyone actually thinks to themselves, "I'm going to get caught" or "Wow, I might hit someone!".
So what are your thoughts? Do I have the right to expand my personal freedom and take away from someone else's, for the sake of convenience?

-Tim

[marinik]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Do I have the right to expand my personal freedom and take away from someone else's, for the sake of convenience?

-Tim

No we don't.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Mounds

So what are your thoughts? Do I have the right to expand my personal freedom and take away from someone else's, for the sake of convenience?

I believe that my freedom stops where yours begins.

I'm allowed to drive 150 km per hours in my own back yard if I want to. Not on a public highway.

Besides the obvious that something bad might happen to you, there is also the part that when you are driving in the dark, and you want to pass someone, the other traffic can reasonably expect you to go a certain speed and not faster. And based on those (reasonable, in my opinion) assumptions you make a decision to pass or not.

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Besides the obvious that something bad might happen to you, there is also the part that when you are driving in the dark, and you want to pass someone, the other traffic can reasonably expect you to go a certain speed and not faster. And based on those (reasonable, in my opinion) assumptions you make a decision to pass or not.

That's a really good point actually. I remember hearing about one guy who was doing 120km in a 60km zone. Someone pulled out in front of him, simply because they weren't expecting that kind of speed.

[Amira]

What about if someone is endangering my personal freedom? Do I have the right to endanger their freedom back? What if my defense of my own personal freedom endangers a third person's freedom?

Let's see if I can think of a scenario for this...

Someone is driving recklessly and there's nowhere to pull over. Do I have the right to speed away, even though this may put this first driver and/or another driver at risk?

Edit: Maybe this is kind of branching off what Sandra already said? I don't know I'm not being very on point today so forgive me.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Mounds

1. You are most likely over-estimating your own abilities.

90% of American drivers say they're above average.

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

90% of American drivers say they're above average.

Right. All Americans are great drivers, it's the rest of the world that brings the stats down.

YouTube - excellent driver

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by ssandra

I believe that my freedom stops where yours begins.

I'm allowed to drive 150 km per hours in my own back yard if I want to. Not on a public highway.

Besides the obvious that something bad might happen to you, there is also the part that when you are driving in the dark, and you want to pass someone, the other traffic can reasonably expect you to go a certain speed and not faster. And based on those (reasonable, in my opinion) assumptions you make a decision to pass or not.

In all seriousness, although I find I agree with you more often than probably anyone else on the forums Sandra, this leaves the question as undefined as it ever was, as everyone's opinion on where exactly this line is will be different with every individual.

Answering the question in this way, to me, doesn't appear any different than asking it.

Where does one persons freedom end and anothers begin?
Where one begins and others end.
Where does one persons freedom end and anothers begin?
Where one begins and others end.
Where does one persons freedom end and anothers begin?
Where one begins and others end.
Where does one persons freedom end and anothers begin?
Where one begins and others end..........

[Brutha]

As a society we renegotiate the boundaries through law. If you believe in the authority of the democratic process it makes sense to stay within the law.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

In all seriousness, although I find I agree with you more often than probably anyone else on the forums Sandra, this leaves the question as undefined as it ever was, as everyone's opinion on where exactly this line is will be different with every individual.

You are right.

I do believe this is a case of "which freedom is more important". My freedom to be safe on the streets is more important than you freedom to drink and drive.

My freedom to be healthy is more important than your freedom to smoke inside.

My freedom to say what I want is more important than your freedom to not feel insulted.

My freedom to say what I want is less important than your freedom to feel safe.

Who decides which freedom is more important? We all do (in a democracy anyway) and that is how laws should be made, in my opinion.

[Lucidism]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Do I have the right to expand my personal freedom and take away from someone else's, for the sake of convenience?

The obvious moral answer seems to be NO, and yet I can imagine ways in which all of us unknowingly damage the personal freedom of other people every day.

Shopping at a Wal-Mart, for example. What harm is there in buying a $3 pack of underwear? Some would argue it does a lot of harm.

[BillyTheAdult]

...and of course I agree with all the things you mention, but we can't just assume that everyone will agree with them, or maybe they agree with the things you say but don't agree with how your view of a specific freedom fit with those views.


Where is the line between good and evil?
Where is the line between black and white? There is so much gray in there.


The line of demarcation is drawn exactly......here.

[Lanya]

People learning to drive can make dangerous mistakes that threaten lives. One of my first times driving outside of a parking lot, I drove on the wrong side of the road for a bit (my dad was with me to point it out, thankfully).

This infringes on other drivers' rights to be safe.

Does this mean people who aren't good at driving yet shouldn't be allowed to practice driving?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

Right. All Americans are great drivers, it's the rest of the world that brings the stats down.

YouTube - excellent driver

I can't tell if you're kidding me back. That was an actual stat, but it was not meant to indicate 90% of Americans actually *are* above average lol, just to confirm how much we are likely to overestimate ourselves.

[BillyTheAdult]

Totally kidding. I don't know if you've seen that movie (great movie if not) but rainman was not the best driver. I've seen stats like this before.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by BillyTheAdult

Totally kidding. I don't know if you've seen that movie (great movie if not) but rainman was not the best driver. I've seen stats like this before.

cool beans

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by Mounds

That's a really good point actually. I remember hearing about one guy who was doing 120km in a 60km zone. Someone pulled out in front of him, simply because they weren't expecting that kind of speed.

I remember some guy going absolutely NUTS at me (read: road rage) because I pulled into his lane in front of him...the thing is I'd checked my rear vision mirror not too long before, and he was WAAAAAAY back... I freaked out when he beeped his horn at me, and changed lanes back to where I was (so no accident) but he literally got out of his car and abused the crap out of me (no need since there was NO ACCIDENT) but afterwards all I could think was: "How the F**K did he get so close behind me so quickly???!!!" Obviously he'd been doing well in excess of the speed limit . Of course, at the time I was just beating myself up for not checking again before changing lanes!

I personally get irritated at people who speed for the very reasons Mounds mentioned in his first post - and that is they're considering only themselves and not the potential consequences of their actions. I know driving at the speed limit is annoying in some places, and sometimes the speed limit seems pitifully slow for the driving conditions etc. but it is there for a reason.

For that reason, I don't get why people ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and moan so much about speed cameras and radar and stuff... I mean, stick to the limit and you'll be okay, right?

The only time speed cameras really annoy me is when they put them in school zones at 8am the first day after the school holidays end . A lot of people aren't aware of the ending and finishing of school holidays, and after several weeks of being able to go at 60km/hr on your way to work you suddenly have to remember to go at 40km/hr again... it's easy to forget! I think you should give motorists AT LEAST a few days to get back into the swing of school times!! (Not sure if it's like that everywhere, but where I live there's a 40km/hr limit around school zones for 1.5 hours each morning and afternoon...but only on school days obviously).

[Mynder]

Lesson in point: when looking in the rear view mirror, look long enough to roughly gauge speed, but not so long that you'll get into an accident over what happens in front of you.

[metamorph]

Originally Posted by Mounds

I can simply ignore the law and do whatever I want. If I'm questioned on it, I can just say that I'm a good enough driver and therefore I should be able to drive whatever speed I choose.

By that logic, Michael Schuhmacher and his buddies at formula one should have a free pass to go 200mph on public roads...

[Angelique]

I'm a little stumped. I can't get clear on an answer when I'm thinking of who's freedom starts where, when and how. Since my view is subjective, their freedom is always subject to my definition. And that definition is always subject to my position, reasoning, mental state, and emotional state.

I can only get a clear answer when I think of the responsibility of the situation that I will or will not take (thus accepting the consequences, too, whether I admit that or not). No matter which position I'm in.

Eh.. I'm not sure what I means on a societal scale.. I'm still trying to figure it out. Or maybe I'm just philosophizing your question too much.

[Divajules]

You can't legislate morality. But, we sure do try and we keep on trying...to little avail if you ask me.

There are no clear boundaries where one person's freedom starts and another ends.

Trying to inflict what is right to me onto you and vice versa will not ever work. There are always gray areas and always exceptions. That is why we have to have trials. For example, yes, I killed someone. Yet, I did it because someone was threatening my life or my child's life. Then, the murder somehow is not so clear cut, is it? We all want to agree that murder is wrong but is it? Just sayin'.

And no, I've not murdered. It was just an example. We have got to stop worrying about what everyone else is doing all the time and tend to our personal responsibility. That is about all we can do, IMHO. At the time, it may have seemed like the correct course of action given the circumstances. You would be judging the event after the fact without having been in that person's shoes. And, things can happen in an instant that you can never take back. Some things cannot be prevented even though we'd like to think they can.

[VinceG]

The OP posits a dichotomy that doesn't exist. Freedom is an artificial concept, a created reality. It doesn't actually exist, except in the minds of people. The canonical answer to this question is, "The freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose." But it's not so simple. Violating a someone's personal space by actually performing that maneuver could get you prosecuted for assault. It's not what you do, it's what other people can argue that you did. And the consequences for violating someone else's freedom range as well. When you kill a person, you're a murderer, when you kill ten you're a serial killer. When you kill 10,000 you're the government.

Freedom is always yours and it can't be taken away. I'm perfectly free to not stop at the tip of your nose and knock you out cold. And then you'd be free to invoke the system of justice. I can get tossed in jail, but the only person that can take away my freedom is me. You can be free in jail. Nobody can imprison your mind.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Divajules

Trying to inflict what is right to me onto you and vice versa will not ever work. There are always gray areas and always exceptions. That is why we have to have trials. For example, yes, I killed someone. Yet, I did it because someone was threatening my life or my child's life. Then, the murder somehow is not so clear cut, is it? We all want to agree that murder is wrong but is it? Just sayin'.

Just because something is justifiable doesn't make it any less wrong. Killing another human is wrong (in my opinion). However, if you do it to prevent and even more wrong, that makes it justifiable. Not less wrong though.

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Do I have the right to expand my personal freedom and take away from someone else's, for the sake of convenience?

-Tim

I think that answering this question by "Yes" or "No" is equally wrong because it implies giving preference to one interest as opposed to the other.

The answer should depend on the value we want to favor at any given time. If we favor the economic growth of car producing companies, we will let drivers speed and ignore the risks. If we favor environment protection and health, we would introduce speed limits.

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by VinceG

The OP posits a dichotomy that doesn't exist. Freedom is an artificial concept, a created reality. It doesn't actually exist, except in the minds of people. The canonical answer to this question is, "The freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose." But it's not so simple. Violating a someone's personal space by actually performing that maneuver could get you prosecuted for assault. It's not what you do, it's what other people can argue that you did. And the consequences for violating someone else's freedom range as well. When you kill a person, you're a murderer, when you kill ten you're a serial killer. When you kill 10,000 you're the government.

Freedom is always yours and it can't be taken away. I'm perfectly free to not stop at the tip of your nose and knock you out cold. And then you'd be free to invoke the system of justice. I can get tossed in jail, but the only person that can take away my freedom is me. You can be free in jail. Nobody can imprison your mind.

I wish I could rep you again, and once again it's for stating exact thoughts and/or beliefs I already carry.

You can be free in jail. Nobody can imprison your mind.

[Divajules]

Originally Posted by ssandra

You are right.

I do believe this is a case of "which freedom is more important". My freedom to be safe on the streets is more important than you freedom to drink and drive.

My freedom to be healthy is more important than your freedom to smoke inside.

My freedom to say what I want is more important than your freedom to not feel insulted.

My freedom to say what I want is less important than your freedom to feel safe.

Who decides which freedom is more important? We all do (in a democracy anyway) and that is how laws should be made, in my opinion.

What about my freedom to protect myself? It still doesn't make murder "right" as you pointed out. Point taken. However, split second judgment calls happen and sometimes you don't sit there and debate it....no time in certain life threatening situations. I'm just saying it is NOT black and white. It may be "wrong" but necessary. Then what?

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by VinceG

The OP posits a dichotomy that doesn't exist. Freedom is an artificial concept, a created reality. It doesn't actually exist, except in the minds of people. The canonical answer to this question is, "The freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose." But it's not so simple. Violating a someone's personal space by actually performing that maneuver could get you prosecuted for assault. It's not what you do, it's what other people can argue that you did. And the consequences for violating someone else's freedom range as well. When you kill a person, you're a murderer, when you kill ten you're a serial killer. When you kill 10,000 you're the government.

Freedom is always yours and it can't be taken away. I'm perfectly free to not stop at the tip of your nose and knock you out cold. And then you'd be free to invoke the system of justice. I can get tossed in jail, but the only person that can take away my freedom is me.

You can be free in jail. Nobody can imprison your mind.

You are contradicting yourself here

It is certainly nice to think philosophically about freedom and feel that you are the only king in your head. There are no problems with the inner freedom. The practical issues arise when you export it to community life and I think there is a huge potential of growth for humanity in understanding and applying the notion of freedom.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Divajules

What about my freedom to protect myself? It still doesn't make murder "right" as you pointed out. Point taken. However, split second judgment calls happen and sometimes you don't sit there and debate it....no time in certain life threatening situations. I'm just saying it is NOT black and white. It may be "wrong" but necessary. Then what?

I have no problem with doing wrong to prevent a bigger wrong. So, no, I would have no problem killing someone to protect myself or my family. Doesn't make what I'm doing right though, it is still wrong.

LIke I said before, for me there is a priority in freedoms. For example; your freedom to live weighs heavier than my freedom to run around shooting people...

I was thinking about that and in my ideal society, rules would be based on that; freedom priorities.

The basic ground rule would be that everybody is free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples freedom.

And from thereon we would make priorities in freedom; top of the list; freedom to be safe in body and mind.. Second; freedom to live

Etc. So, a rules system based on freedom and positive instead of limiting and negatives....

(haven't thought it out completely yet, I'm sure there are some things I'm overlooking...)

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

You are contradicting yourself here

It is certainly nice to think philosophically about freedom and feel that you are the only king in your head. There are no problems with the inner freedom. The practical issues arise when you export it to community life and I think there is a huge potential of growth for humanity in understanding and applying the notion of freedom.

I think freedom as an organizing concept is probably the wrong way to go about it, because one person's freedom is another person's imprisonment. Are you free to practice any religion, or are you free to not have religion impinge on your attention? These questions will remain problematic, because there's no way to define freedom in a way that will satisfy everyone.

[Ilikeindowem]

I don't believe this question can be objectively answered. I also don't think it's an issue of morality, since freedom is a political not ethical principle IMO.

Enlightenment thinking (where all of our modern beliefs on freedom stem from) states that we cannot infringe on others' freedoms. But what defines "others' freedoms"? Is wearing a brightly coloured shirt infringing on others' freedoms not to be perceptually stimulated? If a woman wears revealing clothes in public, is the freedom of a conservatively-minded person being violated, as to him/her, such clothing is offensive?

The issue is to me determining when others' freedom is violated.