Regulation is freedom? Peace is war, too, I guess.

Restricting freedom of bad actors means enhancing freedom of everyone else.

Say a a kid started throwing tantrums at school. By not punishing/ removing him you restrict the freedom of everyone else.

	▲	andsoitis 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ooh they should do that on planes!

▲

NeutralCrane 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you think of a singe freedom you enjoy that isn’t in one way or another supported by some form of regulation?

	▲	andsoitis 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Can you think of a singe freedom you enjoy that isn’t in one way or another supported by some form of regulation? Regulations can protect freedoms, but they don’t create them. Freedom is inherent. Regulations protect.
	▲	tt24 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah most of them

▲

johnnyanmac 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What we have now sure it's freedom. Let's try having our tax dollars work for us this time.

▲

AmbroseBierce 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Regulation took away your freedom when it took asbestos out of your house right? Please be serious.

▲

b112 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Viewing this thread, and the back and forth of it, I need to say something.

Advertising sucks in this thread too.

By that I mean, people are not speaking plainly, and it is almost ingrained into our societies now. We "sell" our position in a discussion, a debate.

For example, regulation does curtail freedom. Completely.

However, lack of regulation can harm people. Significantly.

Thus, regulation does not give people more freedom, it can however reduce harm.

In democratic nations, often judges will weigh these two things, when determining if a regulation passes the muster. In my country, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and often judges will determine if a challenged regulation is of sufficient, required public good, whilst not overtly reducing freedom of the individual.

This is a mature conversation.

Advertising is not.

A primary example I've seen in the US, is people calling immigrants "undocumented" on one side, and "criminals" on the other. This is, of course, a reduction in nuance, and designed to advertise a position merely with the words used. And it is a societal sickness.

An illegal alien is just that, and using that term confers no judgement, for it is simply fact.

There was a time when politics were not first and fore in terms of the use of language. The current trend to be "touchy feely" over use of language, and find great offense at the use of language, does nothing other than stop debate. Reduce discussion. Cause schism instead of collaboration.

And there are those around us, which prefer that.

Don't feed them.

▲

AmbroseBierce 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Completely fair, but I was responding to someone who doesn't think that it curtails freedom but that is the total opposite, you cannot be free if you are dead (except for a few niche philosophical definitions of the word), so human centric regulations like the asbestos ban are orthogonal to freedom, even if I admit in the strictest definition of the word yes, a regulation can curtail your freedom to harm yourself and hypothetically could curtail yourself from positive benefits as well.

But the thing is that statistically the likelihood they were discussing in good faith about this is near none, instead their way of speaking are telltales of a libertarian, where they have a almost religious believe that regulation is their biggest enemy and will never admit that the lack of it could harm or even kill them, I have wasted many many hours talking with such kind of people and don't aim to waste more arguing in good faith giving nuanced responses.

	▲	b112 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oh I'm not blaming you, but the conversational framework we're being collectively trapped in.