If a nation offers a lot of freedom and liberalism, it should only be suitable for highly decent and moral people, do you agree or no and why?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

[inhua]

freedom always come at a cost plus we can't have total freedom otherwise there'll be a lot of crimes being committed.

as far as decent and moral people are concerned, who decides or dictates who is decent and moral and who isn't? does the majority decide that? does God decide that?

you can believe you are decent and moral but others might not believe it. for example SJWs protesting on roads and blocking traffic believe they are saving the planet by bringing attention to the issue of a global catastrophe but tell that to the people who lost their lives because emergency services i. e. police, ambulance, firefighters couldn't get to a certain place at a certain time due to traffic disruption.

[NaultD]

No.

You are only as strong as your weakest point of failure.

A nation that promises the greatest freedom will grant it to everyone to fulfill that promise.

The American democracy is an ever lasting experiment that will never end. Because we will never reach the end of history. THAT'S the whole point. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not words with defined meanings at any given time but change as humanity changes.

[anon1903]

Liberty doesn't mean you should be giving up your morals lmao. In a free nation, you can still be yourself, hold your values like never having abortion, no premarital sex etc. Nobody's forcing liberty on you.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Most people don't have decent morals though.

[anon1903]

That's their problem

[UCrayCray]

Who get to decide what the standard is for “highly decent and moral people?”

[Anonymous]

Uncle Ben said it best, "with great power comes great responsibility". Freedom is for all! Unfortunately not everyone respects all that was sacrificed so they could have them freedoms. And at some point when to many are that way. Much will be sacrificed again. Or we'll lose it altogether.

[Cubus]

Yes, but it's utopian. People that are highly decent and moral are a minority.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

So in that case, do you believe a lot of freedom should be granted or be much more restrictive?

[Asad1ONE1]

The opposite is true also. Rest are in between.

[Cubus]

I believe that most people don't know how to use that freedom in a good way.

[Cubus]

So it should be in some way restricted. The case for discussion is "how much?"

[Asad1ONE1]

Life is short lol

[AngryCarl]

Of course, society needs to be protected from people who aren't moral and decent. Even if they are an ex-President.

[007kingifrit]

yes, freedom is inherently destructive in the hands of immoral people and requires a lot of work to maintain.

[NewtoTheSouth]

Yeah, generally. But in reality, our contemporary political system doesn't offer lots of freedom. Laws abound in order to curb the ability of people to act immorally. Laws against theft and speeding are examples.

[BJP21]

No

Cultural Imperialism is a form of oppression, and therefore unethical.

[WhiteBoyChill]

And that’s the issue. We need facism to keep people in check because most people are not moral

[exitseven]

Freedom is not the same as liberalism.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Liberalism: Definition

willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

[exitseven]

Hahahahaha Pepsi just came out of my nose.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

That's the actual dictionary definition, but you must have your own modern-day definition. 🤷‍♂️

[exitseven]

It just seems it is the exact opposite of what it really is. I think either it is a very old dictionary or it was written by the liberals. Maybe the same person that made up the Affordable healthcare act or the Inflation Reduction Act.

[msc545]

Not necessarily.