Does having laws compromise your personal freedom of choice?

Yes, it does.
Only chaotic anarchy provides true freedom.

Happy Thanksgiving ya’ll!

Since “constitutions” are societal agreements, a law is not inherently unconstitutional. In a democratic republic, laws are generally agreed upon dictates.

And a well written law my impinge on complete personal freedom of choice, but it does not necessarily compromise it. A really well designed law actually supports personal freedom to the point where that freedom impinges on another person.

“A really well designed law actually supports personal freedom to the point where that freedom impinges on another person.”…could you clarify this @zenvelo?

@Dutchess_III Consider a simple law like limits on decorating one’s house for the holidays. We would all probably agree that if you want to decorate one’s house for Christmas is one’s personal choice and freedom.

But what if your neighbor lit his house up starting on November 1? And had so many lights it was like a landing strip? And the lights shone in your windows until 2 a.m. or all night? And of course it was so special that people came by from miles around to see the display to the point you couldn’t get to your own driveway?

A well written law would say “yes, you can decorate your house, it makes the town festive! But here are some rules to keep you from annoying your neighbors! On these days, with lights like this, and only until this time at night.”

Ah! Yes @zenvelo. Good example. I agree whole heartedly. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs (or wants) of the few.”

The question of freedom is never one-sided. Your freedom to something is often in opposition to my freedom from something. I find this to be one of the main differences between conservative and liberal ideologies (or at least how we define them lately – perhaps it would be more accurate to say the difference between libertarian and liberal ideologies):

The conservative wants everyone to be free to act however he wishes, regardless of the effect on anyone else. This, for them, would give everyone equal opportunity.

The liberal wants everyone to be freed of constraints, like poverty or discrimination, regardless of the effect on those who would promote these constraints. This, for them, would give everyone equal opportunity.

Both groups have the same ideals and values, but interpreted in opposite ways, making it difficult for either group to understand the actions of the other – even though their goals are the same.

Laws are a delicate balance of protecting an individual’s freedom and not taking away freedom from another. I would argue most laws don’t compromise your personal freedom if you are considerate of other people to begin with. But, there is no doubt that some laws inhibit our freedom. Laws can go to far, sometimes they get challenged and reversed or modified.

We talk about religion a lot of fluther, and a classic example to me is having laws to protect religious freedom and then also not permitting religious symbols or speech in some public places. One person sees it as protecting religious rights, another sees it as inhibiting their rights.

Noises protecting our rights to quiet enjoyment of at our property. A person’s right to not have to hear loud noise, another person wants the right to blast their music while washing their car at 7:00am in the morning.

Also, there are laws we have to comply with in America to set up a business. Why can’t we just build a stand on a street and sell what we want? Do we have freedom to create a business and support ourselves or not?

Freedom, in terms of being free in a country, is not really being able to do whatever you want, it is about being able to pursue goals no matter what status you were born to’ and being treated as an equal citizen. Our freedom of speech is a protected right to speak out against the government more than anything in my opinion. In other countries people are jailed for doing such a thing. It’s larger than that of course, it is extended to speaking our minds about almost everything.

“Every law is an infraction of liberty.”
—Jeremy Bentham

Laws restrict behavior, which necessarily restricts freedom of choice. This is an unavoidable logical consequence of understanding the two concepts. While we may remain physically free to act as we choose, somebody’s legal options are always reduced whenever a law is passed. Even the Bill of Rights restricts the freedom of those who would prefer to compromise the rights it protects.

But this sort of restriction is not inherently unconstitutional. There is no unfettered right to do whatever one wants in the US Constitution. What we have is a general principle that there must be strong justifications for any restriction of liberty and a set of safeguards for making sure that a particular set of liberties are especially difficult to violate (at least, in theory). After all, the US Constitution itself is a law—indeed, it describes itself as “the supreme law of the land”—but it is not unconstitutional.

The whole point of a social contract is that we voluntarily give up the sort of freedom we have in the absence of government in exchange for the benefits of society. And it is worth noting that every major political theory is part of the social contract tradition, including the American manifestations of liberalism, conservatism, socialism, and libertarianism (of both the left and right varieties).

Yes, a lot.To the point that it is just ridiculous. Laws are bad.

Any time you get two people together and their interests are mutually exclusive you have to compromise. Laws are just a formalized way of doing that.

If a person is capable of living entirely alone, he would still have to compromise or starve to death.

To answer your topic question, “Yes, laws generally limit your freedom of choice.” But that’s not such a bad thing, since there isn’t going to be any “absolute” freedom in any society.

However, there is no connection with the details you added to the question. The Constitution does not address or promise “absolute” freedom. As a description of a “practical” government, that would not be possible; we would have abandoned such a ridiculous notion hundreds of years ago.

Do laws limit your freedom to choose? Of course. Is that unconstitutional? Of course not. The constitution provides for certain laws. The brilliance of the US Constitution is that it recognizes that while some laws are needed to secure our safe enjoyment of our lives, governments are far more often the oppressor than are criminals. It was the first charter for a nation-state to do so.

Because they feared government oppression, our Founders set up a governing document that severely limits the rights of government to intervene in private decisions. The intention is that you have the right to do as you please so long as your doing that doesn’t harm others around you. You don’t have the freedom to kill your neighbors in order to take their stuff. But it you did, they would have the same freedom to kill you. Such “freedom” leads to the rule of the strongest warlord, and the end of all personal freedom unless you are that meanest, baddest bastard on the block and you can do whatever you please and kill or enslave all who object.

We’ve strayed far from the Libertarian intent of the original Constitution today, and I think I am in good company saying we ought to get back to something closer to what the Founders envisioned. But an example of anything goes would be Somalia, and I don’t know of anyone naive enough to believe that Somalia having no effective government there to enforce reasonable laws has made Somalia a paradise of individual freedom.

Are the rules meant to be broken or are they meant to be followed -\(°_o)/¯

If we break the rules, what rules do we break first, do we start big or go small?

I have broken rules in the real world on purpose before but I don’t like the consequences so I am not going to do it anymore.

Out here in Fluther society if you break the rules the wrath of Auggie comes down on you, if you break the rules too much you get blocked out from what I hear and that does not seem like too much fun a jelly stuck swimming in a block..animal cruelty. ٩͡[๏̯͡๏]۶

Happy thanksgiving back to you @Dutchess_III :)

Btw, I slaved 3.1 hours over this turkey so let’s have a feast. On the way here through the internet skyway I thought I saw a hijacker pfft and I ended up running over this internet turkey so to pay homage to him I decided to create this non 3D, paper shredder edible only version, most of you guys should be full by now and I’m not cooking a real turkey, otherwise I apologize ♥ you’ll have to eat the paper. ☽ (°ロ°)☝
Jellies please welcome turkey 3 point 1.

( ) _
(³·¹ )(’ >
(__,~_)8
YY

What I meant to say is you are free to chose any path you wish to take, whether to follow the laws or to face the consequences. That goes for man made laws, as well as the laws of nature. For instance, you can choose to jump off a cliff and see if you can get away with defying the law of gravity. It’s entirely up to you.

No, but that’s because I’ve been raised in an environment where the only idea of freedom, such as it is, can only exist with the laws that we currently have. Deep down I know this is false, but it’s hard imagining living otherwise as I do.
Anyways fuck it, if everything was different, I’d probably bitch, either way.

That’s a great point @Symbeline. ”(Our) idea of freedom can only exist within the laws that we currently have….”