[jorblumesea]

Many Americans talk about "freedom" but their definition is largely narrow and specific to political issues they feel strongly about. The same people who talk about "small government" simultaneously use the federal government to bludgeon states into submissions on issues such as legalized marijuana. It's usually something that's used to justify a specific political position and not an overall sentiment of allowing actual freedom.

On the contrary, many Americans support policies that are against many ideas of freedom such as the disenfranchisement of felons.

For example, someone might use an example of being able to deny a LGBTQ person a service as "having freedoms" but ignore the fact that by denying them that service, that person is also simultaneously less free.

[tssva]

There is no such thing as actual freedom. You exercising your "freedom" almost always means imposing upon someone else's. In your example wouldn't someone having to provide a service to a LGBTQ person even though it is against their religious beliefs be a violation of their freedom of religion just as much as refusing to provide them service would be a violation of the LGBTQ person's freedom?

"Freedom" is used a lot when politics comes up not because it is a way to justify political positions but because politics is to a great degree the arguing of whose freedoms trumps another's under what circumstances.

[keithnz]

that's party of the problem, that view of freedom, that's more about individual choice. It often flys in the face of achieving greater freedoms through rules and social cooperation. People are familiar with the concept but often don't think about it, like driving on the road, if people were allowed individual choice about how they want to drive on roads it would be a nightmare to drive on the roads, but luckily, people aren't "free" to choose which side of the road to drive on ,etc, there are a bunch of rules, and because the vast majority follow these "restrictions" a greater freedom is achieved, you can get from A to B in relatively short time periods in relative safety. Cooperative freedoms tend to give some of the greatest actual freedoms, however, they need to be underpinned and balanced with a set of core individual rights. Working out that balance is... tricky.

[klyrs]

In the same way that federal money can't be spent on abortions because of "religious freedom" but we still go to war with taxes collected from Quakers, we had to fight for decades over the "definition of marriage" because a certain religion's liberties are more equal than others.

[bborud]

Not all exercise of freedoms comes at someone else's expense.

[tssva]

Can you give an example to support this statement?

[bborud]

The freedom to disagree with others. The freedom to marry who you want. The freedom to move about freely in nature without having to worry about property lines.

In some places that are less free, these things are frowned upon.

Edit: you can read about the freedom to move about in nature in certain countries here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

[tssva]

"In some places that are less free, these things are frowned upon." They are frowned upon by some because they affect what those people believe their freedoms should entail. None of these are examples of exercising of freedoms that don't affect the freedom of others.

Take for example the freedom to move about freely in nature without having to worry about property lines. This most definitely affects the property rights of others and their freedom to do as they wish with their property. I'm not saying that your freedom of movement shouldn't out rank their property rights and the freedom to do as they will with their own property but it certainly impacts their freedoms.

[bborud]

I think most scandinavians would disagree with you.

In my opinion, someone having a problem with people taking a walk in their forest need help.

(And yes, I grew up on a property that has a forest, and yes, when encountering people going for a walk or gathering mushrooms, one says «hello» and smiles)

[eeZah7Ux]

> In your example wouldn't ... be a violation of their freedom of religion

Not at all, that's not what freedom of religion is.

I can practice a Mayan or Inca religion by myself - that's freedom of religion - but I cannot allow it to affect other people's life e.g. by organizing human sacrifices.

[tssva]

How is an individual refusing to provide a service which is readily available from others significantly impacting other people's life?

Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom. We as society have made the decision that the right to life is a greater right than your right to freely practice your religion but it is still a violation of your right. It is just another example of how in a functioning society decisions have to be constantly be made regarding whose rights are greater than someone else's under what circumstances.

[eeZah7Ux]

> How is an individual refusing to provide a service which is readily available from others significantly impacting other people's life?

That's a strawman.

> Also not being able to practice ritual sacrifice if it is part of your faith is a violation of your religious freedom.

No, it's not. The ritual is not illegal in its religious aspect. Harming the other person is illegal.

By the same logic I could claim that running someone over is freedom of movement. It's not.