In the US, at least, freedom has been dangled in front of its citizens as the pinnacle of the human condition, something we should all value highly and strive to find and protect. But the freedom to do whatever you want is ALWAYS balanced against the people around you, so that the smaller the group the more freedom it actually has. Larger groups have to compromise to accommodate everyone.

Gathering into a society means less freedoms but far more opportunity. The structure of a society and the ways it curtails certain freedoms create even more opportunities for prosperity. Follow the rules on walking together in public and we'll build sidewalks. Agree not to pee on the sidewalks and we'll improve healthcare. Learn to live with reasonable restrictions and your government can design processes and programs that lift everyone up.

Instead we're told the government is bad for requiring all these rules and regulations and taxing us to enforce them, and that we should instead vote to protect our freedom. The institution that could save us is painted as the cause of our problems. I think the wealthy are the ones interested in doing whatever they feel like doing, and the average citizen is better served by reasonable rules than the ability to do whatever they want.

I was a little late for an appointment this morning, so I took Main Street at around 50 mph, swigging from my whiskey jug, and shooting pigeons and squirrels with my AR-15 as I drove. Given the lack of time, I took the bags of recycling I was going to drop off and pitched them out the window, and the fifteen cans of old paint for the hazardous waste facility along with them. I hope they didn't burst open when they hit the street... but they probably did. Oh well, that keeps the street cleaners employed, right? So I'm practically a philanthropist. Got home later, realized I'd forgotten the 55 gallon drum of a waste oil, but I didn't want to go back and then have to endure eating reheated food, so I just poured it all down the storm drain. I mean, who can keep up with every little nitpicky thing the nanny state forces on us, 'miright? Rules are for suckers and wimps! FREEDOM!

Aw crap, I forgot to pick up cat food. OK, they can get along on Gatorade and corn flakes for one damn day. What am I, a f--ing cat butler?

Freedom should not be dismissed so lightly without considering its nuances.
It is exactly the rules and regulations of society that allows for the maximum freedom of all society.
What some people see as 'freedom' is their individual ability to do as they wish, while disregarding or subverting the freedoms of others in society.
An obvious example are people who oppose mandatory vaccinations as that infringes on their freedom to choose, yet they have no regard for others' freedom to not be infected.
Freedom is a right, and just like any other right, it stops once it starts infringing on the rights of others.
It is the rules and regulations that ensure where individual rights stop so as to ensure equal rights for all society.

49 minutes ago, TheVat said:

What am I, a f--ing cat butler?

Why not ?
I was, for 17 very happy years 🙂 .

Edited November 6Nov 6 by MigL

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

Freedom should not be dismissed so lightly without considering its nuances.

It's one of those concepts that merits more than a single word, so people don't all come up with personal definitions.

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is exactly the rules and regulations of society that allows for the maximum freedom of all society.

This is the part I think a whole bunch of people don't get.

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

What some people see as 'freedom' is their individual ability to do as they wish, while disregarding or subverting the freedoms of others in society.
An obvious example are people who oppose mandatory vaccinations as that infringes on their freedom to choose, yet they have no regard for others' freedom to not be infected.

And I think this definition has been pushed on us to manipulate us. Big Business wants us to think our freedoms are being curtailed by the government so they can reduce the regulations imposed on them. Removing regulations gives these businesses the freedom to make more money.

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

Freedom is a right, and just like any other right, it stops once it starts infringing on the rights of others.
It is the rules and regulations that ensure where individual rights stop so as to ensure equal rights for all society.

This is the part I question. Our vision of being free is actually living in a well-regulated society that respects rights and works for the betterment of all, while many see such regulation as shackles. Theirs is a definition of freedom that probably shouldn't exist because it's been falsely pushed on them.

With more citizens in prisons than nearly every country in the world, it seems to me Americans have a rather odd idea of what "freedom" is, especially when I hear claims of "freest country in the world".

26 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

With more citizens in prisons than nearly every country in the world, it seems to me Americans have a rather odd idea of what "freedom" is, especially when I hear claims of "freest country in the world".

Yeah, I saw a documentary a while ago in which it said that the so-called "land of the free" has 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prisoners.

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

With more citizens in prisons than nearly every country in the world, it seems to me Americans have a rather odd idea of what "freedom" is, especially when I hear claims of "freest country in the world".

Our prisons provide slave labor for many corporations, and it's very convenient that we are a nation of high criminality who prize law and order, even when it's common knowledge that the vast majority are underpaid. I think many of the perceptions of freedom we have start with incarceration as the least free environment. Stay out of jail and you get straps for your boots that you can pull on to lift yourself up out of poverty.

One might argue that the rules and regulations intended to ensure the maximum equal freedoms for all, are not being followed by certain groups within society, leading to excessive incarceration.
One might also argue that those rules and regulations are not being applied fairly and equally amongst the various groups within society, leading to excessive incarceration of certain groups.
I suppose it all depends on your frame of reference.
( hey, this is a science forum 😄 )

The freedom to infringe the freedoms of others isn't the kind of freedom I aspire to. I currently enjoy a high degree of personal freedom, that I attribute to the presence of democratic governance and the rule of law. Those are far from perfect but not having them is worse.

Some good points in comments. Poverty is not conducive to enjoying a sense of freedom and fixing either/both isn't a zero sum game - more like feedbacks that amplify each other.

What about Rosevelt's four freedoms ?

What are the Four Freedoms of 1943?

The 1943 painting traces its inspiration back to the 1941 State of the Union address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in which he outlined four democratic values that he considered essential to preserve: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

I do like Norman Rockwell, by the way.

35 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Poverty is not conducive to enjoying a sense of freedom

An anarchist friend of mine says that there would be no poverty without laws. They claim that before humans began having any concept of law or "right and wrong" there was no significant difference between the best off and worst off in a given group of our ancestors. Unfortunately, since my social group extends well beyond the few hundred individuals those people were likely to encounter in a lifetime some rules and norms are required for everyone to get along.

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

They claim that before humans began having any concept of law or "right and wrong" there was no significant difference between the best off and worst off in a given group of our ancestors.

In such a group, the strong can overpower the weak, but only in a society that has legal and other systems to protect wealth can someone be billions of times wealthier than someone else. Otherwise, a group can only possess the wealth that they can physically protect.

On 11/6/2025 at 3:11 PM, Phi for All said:

Instead we're told the government is bad for requiring all these rules and regulations and taxing us to enforce them, and that we should instead vote to protect our freedom. The institution that could save us is painted as the cause of our problems. I think the wealthy are the ones interested in doing whatever they feel like doing, and the average citizen is better served by reasonable rules than the ability to do whatever they want.

This is write large here in the UK, I have so many friend's that grew up in a council house and went to the local school free of charge; then Margret Thatcher happened, she decided to sell the family silver and enjoy it now rather than invest it in our 'children'.

Now we've got tub thumping flag wavers, that grew up poor, pulling up the drawbridge and hoping they survive the siege.

On 11/6/2025 at 8:11 AM, Phi for All said:

Instead we're told the government is bad for requiring all these rules and regulations and taxing us to enforce them, and that we should instead vote to protect our freedom.

Gosh it's almost like the government says one thing while doing just the opposite.

AP News

Border Patrol is monitoring US drivers and detaining thos...

The U.S. Border Patrol is monitoring millions of American drivers nationwide in a secretive program to identify and detain people whose travel patterns it deems suspicious.

Collectively, the more freedom there is, the more chaotic the population movements/social behaviour will be. It decreases efficiency for everyone. How can moving towards a stochastic picture, aka 'freedom', be more beneficial to anyone? Only the worst of human nature can thrive in that Darwinian environment.

Edited November 21Nov 21 by StringJunky

On 11/21/2025 at 4:18 PM, StringJunky said:

Collectively, the more freedom there is, the more chaotic the population movements/social behaviour will be. It decreases efficiency for everyone. How can moving towards a stochastic picture, aka 'freedom', be more beneficial to anyone? Only the worst of human nature can thrive in that Darwinian environment.

This is essentially answered in the 'bibles', true freedom is there for the meek to inherit; this, I believe, is what confused Nietsche.

His ubermenche was better than the meek...

A slave is, at least, free to think; A rich man can't think past his need for money...

There are two kinds of freedom - negative and positive.

Negative freedom = freedom from other people's interference

Positive freedom = freedom to be able to actually do something

The definition of freedom most commonly used in the US is negative freedom which IMHO is less important - it doesn't matter that you're "technically" free to stop working and embark on a world trip if you don't have the money to do that.

4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

There are two kinds of freedom - negative and positive.

Negative freedom = freedom from other people's interference

Positive freedom = freedom to be able to actually do something

Too binary, and nebulous at the same time. Am I interfering with your freedom when I ask you to immunize yourself and your family so the rest of us don't catch a disease? Absolutely, but is it negative? Is this a burden I'm placing on you to protect society?

Actually able to do... something? What is it you want the freedom to do that you don't have now that would be positive? Is it positive for most, or mostly you?

I've seen this come up recently. You own a home next to other homes like it, in a neighborhood. You have a tree that you want to cut down on your property, and you want to save a ton of money by watching DIY videos and doing it yourself, but the neighbors interfere, claiming you need to hire professionals who know what they're doing and have insurance in case the tree falls badly. Between you and your neighbors, who is being positive and who is negative?

On 11/24/2025 at 11:02 PM, Phi for All said:

Too binary, and nebulous at the same time. Am I interfering with your freedom when I ask you to immunize yourself and your family so the rest of us don't catch a disease? Absolutely, but is it negative? Is this a burden I'm placing on you to protect society?

Actually able to do... something? What is it you want the freedom to do that you don't have now that would be positive? Is it positive for most, or mostly you?

I've seen this come up recently. You own a home next to other homes like it, in a neighborhood. You have a tree that you want to cut down on your property, and you want to save a ton of money by watching DIY videos and doing it yourself, but the neighbors interfere, claiming you need to hire professionals who know what they're doing and have insurance in case the tree falls badly. Between you and your neighbors, who is being positive and who is negative?

I occasionally cut/prune trees down. Most people grossly underestimate the forces in a tree, its mass and gravity. Once a tree starts falling down, you have no recourse at all if it goes down in the wrong direction. Even an architect I did a job for thoughtit would be straightforward to topple his 40-50ft tree on to his garden.... right next to a main road! It's got to come down in sections, and that needs a tree surgeon with insurance and the gear.

Edited December 10Dec 10 by StringJunky

On 11/24/2025 at 6:02 PM, Phi for All said:

You have a tree that you want to cut down on your property, and you want to save a ton of money by watching DIY videos and doing it yourself, but the neighbors interfere, claiming you need to hire professionals who know what they're doing and have insurance in case the tree falls badly.

Too binary, and obvious at the same time.
Let's try something a little more nuanced.
You buy RoundUp at your local Walmart to spray the weeds on your interlocking brick driveway.
Your neighbor tells you to stop as it is a known carcinogen.
Who is infringing on who's rights?

( although your vaccine example works for me )

Edited December 11Dec 11 by MigL

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Too binary, and obvious at the same time.
Let's try something a little more nuanced.
You buy RoundUp at your local Walmart to spray the weeds on your interlocking brick driveway.
Your neighbor tells you to stop as it is a known carcinogen.
Who is infringing on who's rights?

( although your vaccine example works for me )

Let's go further, Asimov's novel 'I Robot'

Presents a situation where 'we' are free from worry, provided that 'we' obey the rules of society.

People create their own prisons, and we're back to, what is a brave new world?

On 12/11/2025 at 2:59 AM, MigL said:

Too binary, and obvious at the same time.
Let's try something a little more nuanced.
You buy RoundUp at your local Walmart to spray the weeds on your interlocking brick driveway.
Your neighbor tells you to stop as it is a known carcinogen.
Who is infringing on who's rights?

( although your vaccine example works for me )

In the UK there is famous 1868 case law about this, known as Rylands v Fletcher.

LawTeacher.net

Rylands v Fletcher - Case Summary

Liability under Rylands v Fletcher is regarded as a specific type of nuisance, a form of strict liability, where the defendant may be liable without having been negligent.

Liability under Rylands v Fletcher is regarded as a specific type of nuisance, a form of strict liability, where the defendant may be liable without having been negligent. 

Basiccally the principle is that if you have something dangerous eg a tiger ( or in the case cited a reservoir) on your property you are liable for any harm it causes if it get out.

Edited December 12Dec 12 by studiot

3 hours ago, studiot said:

In the UK there is famous 1868 case law about this, known as Rylands v Fletcher.

But liability for consequences still has to establish a causal relation.
And while it may be simple to establish cause in the case of a tiger mauling, or a flooded yard and basement from your neighbor's reservoir, it is much harder to link a specific cancer to your neighbor's pesticide use.
So, does that neighbor have the right to prevent your use of a known carcinogen ?

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

But liability for consequences still has to establish a causal relation.
And while it may be simple to establish cause in the case of a tiger mauling, or a flooded yard and basement from your neighbor's reservoir, it is much harder to link a specific cancer to your neighbor's pesticide use.
So, does that neighbor have the right to prevent your use of a known carcinogen ?

Yes you are right.

The law generally only provides for an after the event remedy, not a preventative measure in most situations.

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Let's try something a little more nuanced.
You buy RoundUp at your local Walmart to spray the weeds on your interlocking brick driveway.
Your neighbor tells you to stop as it is a known carcinogen.
Who is infringing on who's rights?

I am not sure whether that alone would be infringement. It could frame ordinary requests as infringement of freedom. OTOH, I can see how folks might think about such requests in terms of infringement (in either direction) and could be insufferably self-righteous about it.

I think infringement really starts once there are (by)laws that would penalize certain actions or lack thereof. I.e. closer to what is described in the first couple of posts in this thread. I think in terms of liability there it is a reasonable assumption that if something is indeed harmful, its use would be restricted for private to some degree (there is also a whole issue regarding the evidence for glyphosates).

.