I've said this so often that I can't remember if I created it or I remembered it as being quoted from someone else...Observe wrote:At what point does the individual liberty of one person, become an infringement on the individual liberty of others?
"Majority rule with tyranny towards none" - that's what is supposed to exist in the U.S.
But, they may not be able to just start shouting their "gospel" or "proselytizing" in the middle of a crowded sidewalk. They may need to get a permit, first. And that's how we've put a control in place for this sort of thing.For example: One person believes God has told them that they must shout their gospel on the street corner. A person walking nearby, may find this gospel objectionable, but they can't do anything about it, because to do so would deprive the preacher of his/her liberty.
There is certainly public land that has restrictions on vehicles and use, accommodating either desire. BUT, one doesn't have the right to go to a bike trail, set aside for that purpose, and to demand bikers stop biking.Another: One person thinks they should be able to ride their loud, smelly dirt bike over remote hiking trails. Another person has worked hard all year, so they can take a month off work to walk this trail and to enjoy the greatness and wonder of nature.
We have defined what "can not be done." That's the Bill of Rights. But, it only applies to public and government action/lands. And, in some cases, restrictions have been agreed upon. For instance, you can't demand to go into an ICBM missile bunker to do your knitting... You also can't park in the middle of the street or on the sidewalk. And, where it comes down to individuals, neither the government nor anyone else can take away someone's Rights, though an individual may agree to voluntarily curtail those rights in certain situations. (Like not shouting "Movie" in a crowded firehouse.) But, no person can separate themselves from their rights, no matter what.Individual liberty is fine, as long as it doesn't harm others. The trouble we run into, is in defining harm. In neither example, was anyone physically harmed. However, there was emotional harm.
You can not force another person to do something they do not want to do without significant legal ramifications. Only the government can do that.A big part of the social debate occurring in present times, involves deciding what is the acceptable threshold of emotional pain, one person can inflict upon another, in the name of personal liberty?
However, people do not have the right to not be offended by the legal actions of others as long as they are able to choose to avoid being exposed to those actions.If you're scrolling through the TV channels and see some nudity, you're empowered to change the channel. Being offended by an accidental bit of full-frontal might have been the result, but you weren't forced to watch it.
(see?)
