• Carrotwurst@programming.devOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    "I’m free as hell. I choose to use my freedom to help my children, my wife, and my community. So no, they and I don’t need to be more capable of taking care of ourselves. "

    Yeah, as I said, this is the level of freedom you want for everyone. People who freely associate with each other take care of each other.

    • protist@retrofed.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      You missed the part where there are people who don’t/can’t take care of themselves in this scenario

      • Carrotwurst@programming.devOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        20 hours ago

        Nope, I spoke of collective freedom and ability. Read the statement again with some thought.

        I didn’t say “the more freedom you want for yourself, the more you must take care of yourself”. I spoke of freedom any one person wants to have for everyone, meaning themselves and others (including people with disabilities OR people they don’t like). And I said you’d also need ableness in proportion to the level of freedom you want. If you aren’t able and can’t take care of yourself, it would be in your best interest to support systems that enable getting you the kind of support you need (though you don’t have to, if you want to grant everyone the freedom to refuse to support you). And if one is so disabled that they can’t do anything for themselves, they probably aren’t too concerned about abstract societal freedoms to begin with.