What is freedom, and what are its limitations?

[ALIHAYMEG]

In both those cases who is to decide what constitutes "harm?" You? Me? A machine? Charity might be considered a harm in the long run if fostering an unconditional reliance on charity.

Don't tell me that corporations are allowed to cater to the needs and desires of consumers? The cads! Such heinous harm indulging consumers the product of their choice. Off with their heads.

That is absolutely the point; everyone will answer those questions differently. We all live according to a "law we give ourselves".

It isn't necessary to cut corners to the point of refusing to acknowledge the damage being done to the environment that could be prevented if only new technologies were perused and developed. There are people who have been living very comfortably completely "off grid" for 25 years. When does making a profit become less important than human wellbeing and sustainable practices? I hope soon or we are all in for it.

[Abridge3141]

Thus one can come to the conclusion that:
Y
The ideal of freedom is subjective to one's opinion, however the beliefs central to the ideal itself are created (and one could say insular) and solely independent thought. However, certain basic freedoms are desired such as the ability to speak without consequence, write one's opinion without consequence, and the right to religious belief without consequence.But, much to our dismay and disapproval freedom must be with limitations. The freedom you possess and are granted must not infringe upon another's freedom. While I did state that we are afforded a choice in each and every situation it was meant to be thought with the condition of ceterus paribus. Moral implications must be considered as well with freedom. We cannot kill another human due to infringing that persons freedom to live without inevitably suffering the consequences, and if not in life (depending upon your religious views) then in death. If evidence that an individual committed such a crime and exercised their freedom of choice as to commit the act then they must be judged accordingly, but that topic is much more complex to be addressed at present due to topics
unrelated to this post having to be addressed...

[grandpa]

Thus one can come to the conclusion that: The ideal
of freedom is subjective to one's opinion, however the beliefs
central to the ideal itself are created (and one could
say insular) and solely independent thought.
However, certain basic freedoms are desired such as the ability
to speak without consequence, write one's opinion without consequence, and
the right to religious belief without consequence.

That is about right, though some want freedom for themselves and not for others. Needless to say, this is largely why we have "politics," which takes a hypothetical task and makes it an imposed necessity, codifying it into law. Inevitably, this creates extra risks beyond what the system was originally addressing, which is why there's the theory (and, at other times, reality) of "checks and balances" to power. Under certain interpretations, though, we end up with zany scenarios -- like the right thing to do in a split election (and, as a result of one such occasion, whether we should abolish Florida).

Grandpa h.