And in some science-fictional future on the planet Mars, all the people enjoy equal amounts of freedom and right to life. It’s just that when a worker says the wrong thing, the company president withdraws their access to his private oxygen generator. Perfect freedom of speech, and perfectly guaranteed right to life.
But true, it’s a matter of definitions. Only I afraid that the restrictive definition can cover any number of dystopias.
-
Legally, yes. I’m saying “Rich people should give to charity, because poor people are starving and they too have a right to live”, and you keep reiterating that “rich people should not be compelled to give up their riches for people they don’t like”.
-
I meant you are not expected by society to give a soapbox to nazis. As in, give charity, even to people you don’t like, but if you refuse to give to a nazi, that’s ok.
-
But that “end” is the reality in every other sector of society. It works for other things. Public transport companies are NOT allowed to filter their customers by race or political opinion, etc.
So maybe you aren’t using straw-man arguments, but is it fair to say that you just don’t see the difference between what I’m saying and the alleged “straw-man” you’ve been using? I’m at a loss to explain any further. It should be obvious to anyone who agrees that Obamacare is not communism…
But the way this is being put sounds scary - what are “consequences”? Do I have the right to murder someone, even though I might have to suffer “consequences” for it?
True, Freedom of Speech as an absolute right does not work - but neither does the right Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If I’m only happy when I kill people, I will have to suffer consequences. My right to liberty will be curtailed. Why is it that with freedom of speech, people always prefer to talk about an absolute right and make sure to define it in a way that any limitations on what people can say aren’t “limitations on free speech” after all?
I mean, it’s like saying a prison inmate is really free, because the Right to Freedom is absolute, it’s just subject to consequences?
