• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes, but technically Liberal describes advocates of indiscriminate personal freedoms which often gets adversarial treatment from communists. For example, Libertarians are technically Liberals, but they want the freedom to not pay taxes. More prominent and less controversial examples of a Liberal are a Civil Rights Activist, a Free Education activist, or Single Payer Healthcare reformist.

    • unexposedhazard
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Like so many things in life, this too is a nuanced issue that you have to carefully look at and weigh on a case by case basis. The line between absolute freedom to do whatever you want and total authoriarianism is trickybto track sometimes.

      • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        a good guide is, “does this ‘freedom’ enable me to infringe on the freedoms of others?”

        typically, in a rational society, that’s where the line is drawn.

        for example:

        • you have freedom of speech, but not the freedom to use that speech to, say, incite a riot
        • you have the freedom to own a firearm, but not the freedom to murder someone with it
        • you have the freedom to travel, but the means of that travel are often regulated (eg; operating a motor vehicle requires one be licensed and insured, and the vehicle be registered, etc).
        • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Normally I’d use the aphorism about the right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins here in order to agree with you, but it was used in so many pro-prohibition arguments that I’m no longer comfortable doing it. Authoritarians will use pro liberty arguments to advance their agendas.

          My agreement stands, however.

        • unexposedhazard
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          And then we have the exception to that rule: Protests

          Protests are technically restricting other peoples freedoms but we weigh the cost of banning them and see that its sort of a necessary evil.

          • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That’s why official protests have to be permitted. If you don’t have an official permit for protest, that protest can be designated as unlawful and disbanded.

            • unexposedhazard
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Depends on where you live. The laws for that do differ quite a bit. In Germany for example, spontaneous protests can be announced to any nearby police officer and immediately become lawful by doing so. In other countries you just need to fill some form, in even other countries its a long and tedious process, etc

                • unexposedhazard
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  It makes for funny interactions in my experience. Bunch of people coordinate to gather in some park, but dont actually technically start any protest or block the street. Then when the cops arrive or just happen to come by (often they already know because they look at public social media) someone walks up to them saying “I hereby declare the forming of a protest” and then we just start. Most experienced officers know thats how it works, but sometimes newbies get all confused and call their superiors.