We talk about freedom a lot...

But what about our responsibilties under the law?

What's the inflection point between where individual freedom encroaches on the freedom of others?

Do we care?

Perhaps like the freedom to not wear a mask and then claim that personal freedom is superior to Public freedom to expect to be safe? When a group says they are free to protest, has a direct impact on others in the form of loss to income or property, or access to goods and commodities. The right to bear arms, to protect yourself, but not become part of a mob, or to use that weapon to create havoc. The rights of the individual should not infringe upon the rights of everyone else, when those rights are in direct contrast of the same. Rules for thee, but not for me, has been a simple explanation when freedoms are not universally applied. It's really the reason that laws became a common operating principal hence common law, but that implies common sense. Sadly that is a lacking understanding these days where people who break laws are allowed to do so in the name of politics. Nothing too common sense about that.

Perhaps like the freedom to not wear a mask and then claim that personal freedom is superior to Public freedom to expect to be safe? When a group says they are free to protest, has a direct impact on others in the form of loss to income or property, or access to goods and commodities. The right to bear arms, to protect yourself, but not become part of a mob, or to use that weapon to create havoc. The rights of the individual should not infringe upon the rights of everyone else, when those rights are in direct contrast of the same. Rules for thee, but not for me, has been a simple explanation when freedoms are not universally applied. It's really the reason that laws became a common operating principal hence common law, but that implies common sense. Sadly that is a lacking understanding these days where people who break laws are allowed to do so in the name of politics. Nothing too common sense about that. Originally Posted by eyecu2

You know, I'm not usually a Grammar Nazi, but, please, learn to use paragraphs, it makes reading your bullshit much easier.

Fucksake, 3rd grade English, come on.

I have no responsibility to do anything to protect you, none, that's the deflection point, when you ask, and expect me to do it.

So you disagree with legal and civil penalties for drunk driving that causes an accident that leads to bodily harm and/or death?

No responsibilities at all to protect others?

Yes I am terrible about lots of things like run on sentences and paragraph spacing, especially on a phone. But at least I contribute some content vs a proverbial stance of:

'I don't have to help a fellow American ever cause I'm a selfish Libertarian. M'erica Fuckers.'(And by M'erica, you mean only ppl who share your political view.)

In this United States, Are you 'United' with anyone outside of your political domain? Seriously??

Yes I am terrible about lots of things like run on sentences and paragraph spacing, especially on a phone. But at least I contribute some content vs a proverbial stance of:

'I don't have to help a fellow American ever cause I'm a selfish Libertarian. M'erica Fuckers.'(And by M'erica, you mean only ppl who share your political view.)

In this United States, Are you 'United' with anyone outside of your political domain? Seriously?? Originally Posted by eyecu2

I choose who I help and when, first on the scene at many accidents, I would also use my firearm in a situation that puts myself or other innocents at risk.

Point being, it's my CHOICE whether I help you or not, its not your job, or the governments job to force me to do something for the good of others, at least, if that involves making me do something medically I don't want to.

As for the drunk driving reference, I don't drink and drive, so your point is moot, and not really relevant to beging with.

Laws that protect society from evil or bad actions don't affect anyone whose not committing evil acts, or bad actions.

But if you want to pass laws to force things like involuntary sterilation, or forced abortion, go ahead and try, and see where it goes politically.

Frankly, I'd be in favor of both things, if it prevented irresponsible people from giving birth to children that society has to pay for.

Seeing that you think people should be forced to do whats right to protect others, protect me from paying for their irresponsible acts, which are no different than drunken driving laws.

Didn't ask you if you drunk drive, Devo.

Only gauging where you draw your lines as it pertains to safety vs freedom. Safe to assume you dislike good Samaritan laws? How about laws involving negligence?

I'm not talking about masking. I'm simply looking for how responsibility interplays with personal freedom as it pertains to the individual vs the collective group. Who flocks to individual freedom vs utilitarianism when pulling from their ethical toolbox

Why would I be against good samaritan laws, the protect people trying to help, which at times, has been me, or in one instance my wife?

Same thing with negligence charges, in some certain circumstances, they are fine, but, some have went overboard in some cases, such as, accusing someone for being negligent for having a loaded gun in their home, say in the case, someone breaks in and steals it.

Generally I believe your home is your castle, so hands off, I'd go as far to protest building codes over things that you want to do inside.

Seeing where those lines are drawn.

There's no rhetorical trap or baiting for a fight. Just curiosity because opinions vary