>Otherwise I'm fine being part of a society that has some restrictions we impose on ourselves.
Unless 100% of people agree to the restrictions then you are imposing on others, not just yourself. Personally I think that we as a society impose on a lot of people for a lot of things and a lot of it is wrong.
I like the principal of imposing on others as little as possible, preferably not at all. Otherwise there's nothing to stop the more powerful majority from screwing over the less powerful minority at some point.
Some examples: Drug laws to imprison african-americans, zoning laws to keep the poor out, voting for taxes on others for charitable causes, blue laws, corporate monopolies, the environment and the tragedy of the commons, making it illegal for the homeless to sleep, algorithms and bureaucracy imposed on others, punishing non-conformity, etc.
I've always thought the principal of not imposing on others is a good idea. I thought it would make a great amendment to the constitution. With this principal to limit the tyranny of the majority, and the manipulated or fickle masses, we could still tackle all of societies problems, and filter out a lot of abuses along the way.
But lately I'm thinking that this just seems to be impractical. It seems that too many individuals, groups, corporations, and leaders want to impose on others. They are selfish and want the world to be as they say and they don't care so much about who has to pay or suffer for it.
I wish this got talked about more. I assume we all have in common that we don't want to be imposed upon by others.
In a society where an effort is made that the law will impose on others as little as possible there would inevitably be people who misbehave by imposing on others - physically hurting people or stealing from them for example. People who impose on others in this manner should still be punished, or maybe exiled.
But there are a lot of people in jail who have not hurt anyone else, for crimes like drug possession. In the comment you responded to I gave other examples where a majority imposes on others with dubious justification.
Look at how fickle U.S. politics is, with our federal-tribal-leaders now expressing the will of a new 51% majority that changes every couple of terms, increasingly treating the constitution as something to work around. It seems that there are way too many people/groups who would be happy to force everyone to their way of thinking, worldwide, and that leaves lots of room for abuse and corruption.
I suppose there's not much that can be done if most people think that's ok.
Unless 100% of people agree to the restrictions then you are imposing on others, not just yourself. Personally I think that we as a society impose on a lot of people for a lot of things and a lot of it is wrong.
I like the principal of imposing on others as little as possible, preferably not at all. Otherwise there's nothing to stop the more powerful majority from screwing over the less powerful minority at some point.
Some examples: Drug laws to imprison african-americans, zoning laws to keep the poor out, voting for taxes on others for charitable causes, blue laws, corporate monopolies, the environment and the tragedy of the commons, making it illegal for the homeless to sleep, algorithms and bureaucracy imposed on others, punishing non-conformity, etc.
I've always thought the principal of not imposing on others is a good idea. I thought it would make a great amendment to the constitution. With this principal to limit the tyranny of the majority, and the manipulated or fickle masses, we could still tackle all of societies problems, and filter out a lot of abuses along the way.
But lately I'm thinking that this just seems to be impractical. It seems that too many individuals, groups, corporations, and leaders want to impose on others. They are selfish and want the world to be as they say and they don't care so much about who has to pay or suffer for it.
I wish this got talked about more. I assume we all have in common that we don't want to be imposed upon by others.