I never said anything about the experience of burden. You’re just making that assumption and skipping over the criteria of “freedom for EVERYONE”. Not just the individual.
The hyper-individualist (who might see caring for others as burdensome) has to accept that EVERYONE has the same level of freedom as them - meaning if they allow everyone the same level of freedom as themselves, they must accept the possibility that nobody catches them as they fall (and that they may have to actively defend themselves against other people exercising their freedom the way they want) and thus, they must be willing and able to care for themselves in exact proportion to how much they want freedom for EVERYONE. This does include having the ABILITY to persuade other people to care for you the way you need (be it out of genuine love for one’s family or by oppressive force - but again, everyone else has the same freedom).
On the other hand, if you want to be very collectivist and put emphasis on mutual care and group cohesion, you’re going to have to accept that amount of limitations on EVERYONE’s freedoms. Meaning you have responsibility to follow the social norms and rules of a collective. Laws, regulations, taxes. You’re going to have to be subject to some kind of authority that keeps cohesion in place BUT that authority on the other hand does have the responsibility to provide care, services, general quality of life.
Where you land here is on nobody but you to figure out.
Also sure, people can demand freedom for themselves and oppression for others but seeing as absolute freedom is the natural state of humans prior to humans themselves conceiving limitations on it, their demands will always be subject to challenge. As in, they can demand it, but there is no non-human principle that grants them more freedom than others. Whatever rules they can break, so can anyone else.
I never said anything about the experience of burden. You’re just making that assumption and skipping over the criteria of “freedom for EVERYONE”. Not just the individual.
The hyper-individualist (who might see caring for others as burdensome) has to accept that EVERYONE has the same level of freedom as them - meaning if they allow everyone the same level of freedom as themselves, they must accept the possibility that nobody catches them as they fall (and that they may have to actively defend themselves against other people exercising their freedom the way they want) and thus, they must be willing and able to care for themselves in exact proportion to how much they want freedom for EVERYONE. This does include having the ABILITY to persuade other people to care for you the way you need (be it out of genuine love for one’s family or by oppressive force - but again, everyone else has the same freedom).
On the other hand, if you want to be very collectivist and put emphasis on mutual care and group cohesion, you’re going to have to accept that amount of limitations on EVERYONE’s freedoms. Meaning you have responsibility to follow the social norms and rules of a collective. Laws, regulations, taxes. You’re going to have to be subject to some kind of authority that keeps cohesion in place BUT that authority on the other hand does have the responsibility to provide care, services, general quality of life.
Where you land here is on nobody but you to figure out.
Also sure, people can demand freedom for themselves and oppression for others but seeing as absolute freedom is the natural state of humans prior to humans themselves conceiving limitations on it, their demands will always be subject to challenge. As in, they can demand it, but there is no non-human principle that grants them more freedom than others. Whatever rules they can break, so can anyone else.