Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Referees decide where your freedom ends and mine begins

Referees decide where your freedom ends and mine begins
Getty IMages

Leland R. Beaumont is an independent wisdom researcher who is seeking real good. He is currently developing the Applied Wisdom curriculum on Wikiversity.

Introduction:


The idea that “my freedom ends where yours begins” is a fundamental principle that lies at the heart of a harmonious and just society. This concept encapsulates the understanding that while individuals have the right to exercise their freedoms, those freedoms must not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. In cases of conflicting interests, a referee, whether in the form of laws, institutions, or social norms, plays a crucial role in resolving disputes and upholding this principle. This essay explores the concept of “my freedom ends where yours begins” through several examples, emphasizing the need for a referee to mediate and ensure a fair balance of individual freedoms.

Examples:

1. Freedom of Speech vs. Hate Speech: In a democratic society, freedom of speech is a cherished right. However, when one person’s expression of this freedom crosses the line into hate speech or incitement to violence, it endangers the safety and well-being of others. In this case, the referee is the legal system, which steps in to protect individuals from harm while preserving the principle of free speech. Laws against hate speech exist to strike a balance between the two conflicting freedoms.

2. Property Rights vs. Environmental Conservation:

An individual’s right to own and use property must coexist with the collective interest in environmental protection. When a property owner’s actions threaten the environment, the government or environmental agencies act as referees. They impose regulations and restrictions to ensure that one person’s freedom to use their property does not harm the broader community’s right to clean air, water, and a healthy environment.

3. Religious Freedom vs. Non-Discrimination:

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right, but it cannot be used as a shield to discriminate against others. When religious beliefs clash with the principle of non-discrimination, the legal system often serves as the referee. For instance, businesses that refuse to provide services to certain groups based on religious beliefs may face legal consequences, ensuring that the freedom of religion does not infringe upon the rights of others.

4. Parental Rights vs. Child Welfare:

Parents have the right to make decisions about their children’s upbringing, but this right must be balanced with the welfare and best interests of the child. In cases of child abuse or neglect, child protective services act as referees, stepping in to protect the child’s rights and safety. They ensure that parental freedom ends where the child’s well-being begins.

5. Freedom of Assembly vs. Public Safety:

The freedom to assemble and protest is a vital aspect of a democratic society. However, when protests escalate into violence or pose a threat to public safety, law enforcement agencies serve as referees. They work to balance the right to protest with the need to maintain order and protect the safety of all citizens.

Conclusion:

The principle that “my freedom ends where yours begins” is a cornerstone of a just and civilized society. It acknowledges the importance of individual freedoms while recognizing that these freedoms cannot come at the expense of others’ rights and well-being. To strike a fair balance, a referee is essential. Whether in the form of laws, institutions, or social norms, the referee plays a crucial role in mediating disputes and ensuring that the boundaries of individual freedom are respected. In doing so, societies uphold the ideals of justice, equality, and the protection of human rights.

This essay was generated by ChatGPT responding to the prompt: “Write an essay on the topic ‘my freedom ends where yours begins’. Include several examples illustrating this concept. Highlight the need for a referee to resolve disputes and identify the referee in several examples.”

Read More

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less