Notion of the day

[nancylebov]

If It Can't Be Abused, It's Not Freedom

I think it's a sound principle, but I'm not completely sure I'm right. What do you think?

From Flow, an idealist libertarian blog.

Comments

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

I don't believe there is a "right" answer to the question of what constraints, if any, people acting in a social context should place on the actions of people in the society, for two reasons.

First, because I don't believe there are constraints, only ground rules. Laws and police don't prevent "crimes," they only punish them. Ground rules don't constrain my behavior; they tell me what consequences certain choices might entail, and I am free - unconstrained - to make those choices if I accept the consequences.

Second, because I don't believe there is a "right" set of ground rules. The ground rules will be a product of the group of people setting them and the situation for which they are set. Like ferexample: capital punishment probably makes sense for a nomadic culture, that doesn't have a lot of options for restraining people, but maybe not so much for an industrial society.

(I do believe that there are real moral imperatives, but they cannot be imposed, only followed.)

So I can't address your question in any way you will perceive as substantive. The semi-useful fiction called "society" sets ground rules based on a sort of averaging function of perceived needs. I choose to follow or not follow those ground rules and accept the consequences either way.