N_C

One of the main points to this thread is regarding those that see others doing things that they consider an infringment on their freedoms. Remeber there those that firmly believe in absolute freedoms.

So if I call the police on someone drinking & driving is'nt that an infringment on their free right to drink & drive? Yet it is still considered a good idea to do what it takes to get the drunk driver off the street?

So which is the right course of action? Take the side of those who believe in absolute freedom & do nothing? Or get the drunk driver off the street & damn that persons freedoms because he or she is a danger to everyone else & possibly be accused of wrongfully infringing on someone elses freedoms?

Absolute freedom is exactly that, absolute. The freedom to do what ever you want when ever you want with out worrying about &/or paying the consequences for your actions. I believe someone told me you can't have it both ways, but in differant terms, you either have absolute freedom or you don't. If those that believe in absolute freedom do agree that it is a good idea to get & keep drunk drivers off the street then maybe their absolute freedoms are not as absolute as they thought them to be.

Is it possible that those that believe in absolute freedom maybe straddle the fence on some of the freedom issues? Meaning some are absolute & other freedoms are not, like the issue of a drunk driver & what needs to be done by citizens to get & keep them off the road. Would any of those forum members here who believe in absolute freedom care to admit to the fact that some freedoms are absolute & others are not, because they can not be for the greater good? Keep in mind you run the risk of being called & considered a hippocrite if you admit to this.