> But there are the difficult questions: keeping things safe, inappropriate interference... these are places where lines have to be drawn. They are gray areas. They take human judgement because one-size-fits-all policies don't actually fit all. This is a fundamental problem for civil society because people differ in their beliefs on where to draw the line. And people are fallible, they can make mistakes in judgement. People are also corruptible, or come with their own biases. It makes things difficult and messy, but that is the hard work that it takes to give people as much freedom as possible without sacrificing one person's freedom for someone else's. Even then there must be compromises: I think it's a very reasonable restriction on my freedom of movement to have to wait in traffic for a while because other people are exercising their freedom to assemble and protest etc.
We are different because things are very clear to me. Crystal clear. There are nothing "grey lines" there.
Keeping freedom of assembly behind so hoops to jump on a pretext "It's not me who is prohibiting this! Rules do! I'm doing it for your safety!" is very convenient for every bad government around. Otherwise it's entirely pointless.
1. Lots of angry people don't need any freedom of assembly to whack anybody good.
2. Everybody else will not do that anyway.
3. Whacking somebody good, is an act of assault, you either have a riot, civil war, or already a revolution.
You are ignoring my answer about how gatherings or protests can impact my own freedom. Any freedom has that potential. I listed some, but here are more:
What if I want to hold a gathering in the same place at the same time? Which gathering gets the space? Why should my freedom to assemble be limited because of your freedom to assemble? That's an issue that getting a permit resolves: simple scheduling of resources.
Maybe the protest is against a business I work for: What about my freedom to go to work without people shouting at me about how awful I am for working there?
Maybe the protest causes extra traffic at a busy time of day. I have a heart attack and die because the extra traffic meant the ambulance couldn't get there on time. My right to life was taken away because of the gathering, but it's an easy issue to resolve by with a permit process to ensure minimal disruptions.
What if the gathering is in the middle of the street because they're protesting building the road further through natural lands? My freedom of free movement is taken away.
I can go on and on about how something as seemingly simple as freedom of assembly has the potential to impact other people's freedom, because freedom is not as simple as you want it to be.
You insist things are black and white but when I point out a complexity, you ignore it except to repeat yourself in different ways. You have not provided any actual justification. You say that a freedom is not a freedom if there are preconditions but never answer the issue of how all laws are preconditions on freedom.
The questions I raise are not philosophical: you cannot rationally make any claims about freedom if you have not thought through these very basic issues. If you have not examined these questions then your opinions are built on air and emotion, not clear thinking and reason.
I'm done here though. Feel free to respond, but I won't reply only to have you repeat yourself and ignore anything that contradicts your wish for things to be black and white.
We are different because things are very clear to me. Crystal clear. There are nothing "grey lines" there.
Keeping freedom of assembly behind so hoops to jump on a pretext "It's not me who is prohibiting this! Rules do! I'm doing it for your safety!" is very convenient for every bad government around. Otherwise it's entirely pointless.
1. Lots of angry people don't need any freedom of assembly to whack anybody good.
2. Everybody else will not do that anyway.
3. Whacking somebody good, is an act of assault, you either have a riot, civil war, or already a revolution.