Why is it always taking the shine off the edge is not for the faint hearted! It's not constructive, it is downright pessimism. The class is always half empty. I know if this person is a teacher, then just imagine the state of children's learning would be; low self- esteem; not wanting to come to school and playing sickie all the time.
A critic is someone who critically examines and analyses a piece leaving room for improvement. But these people are typical of negativity sometimes personal. Some of them are leaders and are known for their discouraging comments. Should any of these so-called leaders get a chance to rule, imagine what kind of society would that be!
Like a lost child, always looking for affirmation and dependent. It doesn't make for a productive society.
I just couldn't live with someone who is on the edge; always nagging; always checking; always negative. It's a continuous headache. I have also had my days of babysitting adults; it zaps too much energy off you.
Ok, I could take a stand and let them do what they please without a care. It's their right according to some kind of freedom. But why do they exercise this right with you when you are minding your own business is nothing more than bullyism and harassment.
I have an underlining principle in my decisions when I am reasonably rational. I don't always stop to think about my decisions, but after a long time, I have managed to stay out of trouble despite the fact that adversaries don't sleep at night.
Ok, an individual may argue that it's his/her freedom to smoke. Another individual exercise his/her right to use fossil fuel and burn coal for energy. Many believe it's their right to do as they wish. If so, then why does the health system spend so much of our tax revenues to look after smoke and pollution related diseases and illnesses? They had the freedom to do as they wish and therefore are responsible for the consequences. Not the tax payer!
It gets me that this right to do as he/she wishes is exercised to anti-vaccinate. At the same time, Delta variant is spreading like wild fire among those unvaccinated.
We have a duty as citizens to protect the young and members of society. Yet, these antivaxxers knowing the consequences of spreading the virus can cause critical conditions for the young and old but continue to spread antivax messages in the community.
This so-called freedom to do as he/she pleases is shown in the above actions of smoking, pollution and antivaccination as leading to death. You see, it is the same as freedom to kill someone or themselves. I guess directly killing someone or themselves is not the same as setting up someone to be killed by smoking, or breathing CO2 and antivaccination. It's a secondary cause of death.
That liberal, political and material freedom of the individual is subjective. Subjective is individualism, destructive and unconceivable and has no clear principle.
My reasonable arguments are based on objective principles. Objectivism is not about good and evil or right and wrong. I have used the terms complete and incomplete to describe a purpose contributing to the common good, the good of the community. It is the greater good over the wishes of the individual.
The community argues in favour of vaccination to protect lives of the vulnerable. It is a solid foundation of the community. The individual argues for whatever reason why antivaccination must be good for him/herself. It's a selfish ambitious argument that is destructive as we all know under covid-19 conditions.
J. S. Mill may have favoured freedom of the individual in the same subjective sense as K. Marx's Socialism. They are both subjectivism in the sense that the individual indulges in his/her desires. When individuals come together to indulge in their subjective desires, their aggregation is merely fulfilling the individual's material purpose. It is not a constructive purpose to the stability of the community but an aggregation the bases of the market.
Today, the biggest market is based on addiction to individual material desires. How can the sale of smokes, drugs and alcohol, games and videos may fix and individual desire, but the consequences accumulate illness and disease in the community also paid for but the taxpayer!
Liber freedom is a material subjective freedom that on its own is not sufficient to endorse moral decisions. It is secondary. The freedom of society is greater and has solid contributions for the safety, welfare and wellbeing of the individual. It is the primary moral principle.
So by all means, the individual has a freedom to do as he/she pleases. But he/she surrenders his/her freedom when the health, welfare and wellbeing of society is at risk. So liberal freedom may want to impose harm n me, but he/she cannot do it directly. Instead, he/she may have to will me to do something that may result in harm.
However, since I have the primary principle standpoint, I can directly stop you from hurting me or anyone else. So society has rule over the individual, not the opposite.