Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

You should have grasped in my prior post that I find ideas like 'freedom of congregation' and 'freedom of imprisonment' to be a debasement of my belief that no matter what has happened, is happening, or will happen to an individual they always possess an uncompromisable ability of choice.

I'm not sure if I can agree with that, unless people can cease to be individuals without, in the traditional sense, dying (take people in persistive vegetative comas - they're not able to make any choices as far as I can tell). Also, a third party can certainly affect your set of choices - if you're in solitary confinement "kiss a person" is no longer one of your options, you're stuck with "pace restlessly", "stare at the wall", "starve yourself to death", and so on. It's in this sense that I care about freedom - I feel that some choices should be available to anyone, in order to maintain human dignity. And when you take those choices away from someone you're doing something bad. That's not to say it's never necessary - but just that it needs to be acknowledged as such in every case when it's done (and as far as I'm concerned, the only reason to do it is to prevent them doing worse to others).


btw I'm a little confused if you have 2 accounts or just completely didn't post the thing I was rebutting.