That pretty much explains everything, thank you for your time.
> but not ok anymore
I never said it's not ok, I said it isn't the only thing that a society owes to the people. You failed to explain why do you think "freedom" should be the only such thing.
> Real question, not trying to be a prick here.
If you feel that such a disclaimer is necessary, it would be better to phrase the question differently in the first place.
...
> If you feel that such a disclaimer is necessary, it would be better to phrase the question differently in the first place.
And waste even more time, no thanks.
Now of course, I'm talking in principle here, individual freedom is limited by other things, private property for example, or justice, like in this case with this guy in solitary confinement, but it's because we live in society with other people and we all need to get along, but the principle still remains, freedom is a natural right that precedes society itself.
This was the sense of my comment.
> how being put in jail for transgressions and being free are interrelated?
Jail acts both as a deterrent, through fear of being punished, and it also incapacitates the offender to commit more crime to protect society.
> Who or what determines what is a severe enough transgression to lose your freedom?
It's the people, through laws, who determines what behavior is or is not acceptable in society.