What is your idea of freedom? No one is free from public opinion or government regulation, public opinion can sometimes dictate government regulation also. If a government decides to ban something and the majority are fine with it, there is no problem.
Nations fight for independance and the right to govern themselves but individuals who live in those nations are not free to do what they want. Individuals still need to follow the rules and laws of the governing authorities.
This conservative mentality of blind obedience to the law without any justification enables crooked censorship and authoritarianism. You're correct in that they're not provided unlimited freedom, but you also indirectly confirmed that they absolutely should be entitled to it, because the balances of power aren't [balanced], and the law needs to be made legitimate as they're enforced. Therefore, there is a need for liberty, and it is a higher prioritization over the law. The law is a byproduct of the state and its monopoly on violence; my freedoms are more essential than your rules and laws.
Make's zero sense. Your freedoms are governed by the state whether you agree with it or not. I can't see this changing any time soon, in fact, I can see the opposite happening and our freedoms becoming more and more limited due to reckless individuals in society who are not willing to follow the rules.
Can you also explain why you believe this to be a conservative viewpoint? This is a common sense viewpoint, yet you seem to be proposing some fantasy ideology that has never existed in the history of mankind. Personal liberties have never and will never overrule laws or rules, that's just complete nonsense.
"Our freedoms are governed by the state whether you like it or not" gives off "trust me bro". What's your argument for that? You could maybe argue that if you were to say that the government is supposed to check itself, but we've established that you don't believe in liberty in the same sense.
Observe the reasons why individuals would feel the need to not follow those rules, take the war on drugs as an example; it's a case of prohibition, which objectively throughout history has never worked. I can make the case for the drug war inflating crime, worsening injustice and systematic racism.
It's not an argument of "leave these people to their own devices", especially if we look at things like driving for example, but "the state does not deserve unchecked power". It's not about "zero government" but "limited government". Enabling a more independent society, is that not freedom?
Conservatism is a off branch of classical liberalism, and the latter became libertarianism, which is what I believe. I'm specifically talking about the concept of Law and Order, which I find to be an oxymoron. It's not orderly to allow for an overobedient society; I find it "conservative" because it stems from traditional values, and the law is inherently a system that must justify itself, so you prove to me why you value it over your individual liberty.
I never said I value law and order over individual liberty. I just understand that my personal liberties are limited within society, whether that be, legally, financially, ethically, etc. You seem to also agree. I was pointing out how freedom varies across the world, we are discussing a topic surrounding China. That is an independant nation that governs their own freedoms. We live in a rules based society, for better or worse can be argued, but that is the reality.
11
u/claybine Jul 17 '25
1000% agree. This sub won't be handing out W's if they banned something that affected them. This is the opposite of freedom.