[CatoRenasci]

Again. If freedom means that what we "ought" to do is permissible, then what is permitted must be the subject of broad agreement. What if something a majority (at a time) thinks you "ought" to do violates deeply the views of a substantial minority? Or, falls afoul of the limits on the majority? What then? Do you have a civil war?

And, does your position imply that what every is not expressly permitted is forbidden? What about things that are not "oughts" but not forbidden? What about superogatory acts? The difficulties in your proposal are legion. It's just not worth talking about any further.

[Greg F]

It’s a basis for judgment. You have yet to provide a basis for judgment on what the law should allow and what it should prohibit, which is a point I made earlier. Your ultimate objection seems to be that not everything should be allowed, that we have a basis for judging something as wrong and to be prohibited, and a basis for judging other things right and to be protected.

I’ll ignore the straw men, since JP2’s statement was that “Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” No mention there of forbidding actions not expressly granted permission by the state.