I know it already is but should it be?

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 hours ago

    No, it should not. “My freedom ends where it starts infringing on other peoples rights.” is the basic law of humanity. Any law book should basically follow this line, and mostly actually do.

    • krigo666@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I don’t know why you are being downvoted, this is correct: “My freedom ends where the next person’s freedom starts.” We can do everything we want as long it doesn’t harm or encroach (and “harm” and “encroach” are loaded words in this context) on the next person. “Harm” and “encroach” here means you don’t diminish the other persons rights, at all.

      • Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 hours ago

        “At all” is kinda contradictory part. Limiting harm to others would already necessitate limiting freedoms and the more people and closer together they live the more freedoms are limited.

        Living in the middle of nowhere and a person can do almost whatever pops in their mind, almost absolute freedom.

        Living in a city and there’s a long list of laws/rules/regulations that already limit what one can do. Not that those are bad limitations.

        • Solumbran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Individuals should not limit other’s freedom, and as such the law can restrict individual freedoms to that purpose.