These discussions are always interesting. Their commercials are annoying.
They get tangled up over the definition of freedom to the point where it makes it look like they don't know what they are talking about. Freedom is very simple; you should be able to do what you want just so long as you don't interfere with the same right of others. The exact boundaries can be unclear which is one reason why you need a legal system to define rights. For example, free speech and property rights need legal definitions. I just can't claim that something of yours belongs to me. There needs to be a system for determining what is property. Likewise, people shouldn't violate other people's rights in the name of free speech, although there is a lot of that going around.
However, their discussion claims to be for freedom while apparently wanting to constrain freedom by religious values. It makes them look hypocritical.
As a side note, some claim that we have "natural rights". The problem with this is that you may think that you have the right to live but a bear thinks that it has the right to eat. People have preferences and tendencies, where they prosper when they are free, but without a legal system, they have no rights at all. It just becomes the rule of the most powerful.
The political discussion that followed was good.
No comments:
Post a Comment