This is a matter of undefined concept. I know what freedom is, you do also, so we automatically assume that we are talking about the same thing but we are not. You might bring the argument "too much freedom means that I can kill people whenever I wish", while I will never say this, because for me this is not freedom, this is anarchy. We both agree that a person should not kill another, but for you this is a restriction of freedom, while for me it is its implementation. All we need to do is define the concept of freedom and we don't have to look too far, Ayn Rand has done the job for us: "Freedom [...] has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion."
It really is that simple. Of course this definition will trigger more questions, you will find most of the answers in Objectivist literature. To get back to the issue at hand, the answer is that there is no "too much freedom". There is only freedom or slavery. Freedom is the answer to most of the problems you think you find. Eliminate the legalization of physical coercion between people, and most of all between government and people, and you will see that the problem does not actually exist. There is no "compromising line", as there cannot be a compromise between freedom and slavery. I will go another step forward and define physical coercion:
Physical coercion is the initiation of physical force or of a threat to use physical force against an individual without his consent.
Just a few examples and then I will stop: I cannot beat up anybody, except in self defense, because in this case I would not be the initiator of the use of physical force. I am allowed to hit a would be robber even if he hasn't touched me but has a gun in his hand and he is pointing it at me. A man is not allowed to rape a woman, but is allowed to have sex with her, beat her up, cut her with a razor blade or even kill her, if he has her consent.
|
|
|
|
|