Process
Status Items Output None Questions None Claims None Highlights Done See section below
Highlights
id810611771
If we accept that not all limitations of freedom from interference are unjust, but we also think freedom from interference is extremely important, what principle should we use to decide how much of it everyone gets? In some cases, like freedom of speech, a plausible answer might be that it shouldn’t be limited at all. Everyone should be able to express any opinion.
✏️ questions This does come up a lot in my conversations with Faisal. How do you reconcile everyone having freedom, with some liberties trotting upon other’s liberties? Everyone can have as much freedom that’s compatible with everyone else having just as much freedom of their own. 🔗 View Highlight
id810611779
But that answer doesn’t work in the example we started with. Airplanes have limited numbers of seats; air travel uses a lot of fuel. We can’t just let everyone board every flight. So it looks like some unfreedom is unavoidable, and we have to decide how to distribute it.
id810611747
how much freedom everyone should be granted when “all of it” isn’t on the table is that everyone should get the maximum degree of freedom compatible with everyone else enjoying just as much of it. That’s one way of understanding, for example, the cliché that my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose.