Comment by itistoday | Hacker News Reader

Comment by itistoday | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I wish people would stop using that term, "free country". I don't know of very many "free countries". If you live in the United States, you live in a free-er country than North Korea, and indeed, that's something to be grateful for, but you do not live in a truly free country.

In a truly free country, you would, for example, have the freedom to eat whatever you want (so long as it doesn't impinge on other people's freedoms). You would be able to have sex with whoever you wanted (so long as both parties are 'mature enough' to agree). This too, is not the case in the states. You would be able to marry whoever you wanted. You would be able to do to your body whatever you wanted. In a truly free country, you would have the freedom to do things that in today's non-free country we consider taboo, punishable offenses. Etc.

Clearly, a "truly free country" would fall apart instantly due to the inevitable chaos and evils. Thus why I didn't even bother making the distinction between "free" and "free-er". I assumed it was common knowledge.

My personal definition of freedom is the ability to do anything within the realm reasonable laws. I feel a vast majority of US laws are reasonable. Maybe you don't agree, maybe you do. I'm happy & patriotic US citizen and that's all that matters!

You would be able to have sex with whoever you wanted (so long as both parties are 'mature enough' to agree). This too, is not the case in the states.

Ok I'll bite. What laws are there in the US that restrict who you can have sex with? Laws against minors don't count as there needs to be some legal definition of "mature enough", unless you want a subjective judgment of maturity on a case by case basis.

That's a fairly naive notion of freedom, man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty

I don't understand your reply. I agree with Mill, and I gave examples that illustrate the Harm Principle.

Agreed. Living in a country pretty much means you're not free. You might be more or less free in country A than B, but you're not going to be free, otherwise there wouldn't really be a country, there'd be pure anarchy. Where you could do anything you wanted, but everyone else is free to do anything they wanted to you.

That is not my meaning. A pure anarchy where anyone can do what they want to you goes directly against the examples I gave and the Harm Principle (see response to apl).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com