[aperson]

Originally Posted by flashflash account

Probably, but it comes at the cost of personal freedom if it was forced.

Treating personal freedom as a deontological absolute is the sort of naivete that shouldn't last beyond your high school libertarian phase.

Here's a basic intractable problem for it: You get in a car, you drive somewhere. You exercised your freedom. I go for a walk, I breathe in the emissions from your car. You've impinged on my personal freedom to breathe clean air because you've created a negative externality. Do you actually have the freedom to place negative externalities onto me or not? Do I actually have the freedom to not have to deal with your negative externalities or not?

If we changed this scenario to "Do you have the right to shoot me" the answer is suddenly very obvious, and even the full "personal freedom" person will find some sort of excuse to make not shooting the correct answer. Personal freedom advocates usually think in terms of these very striking scenarios because they don't bother to have the mindfulness for others to consider the more subtle scenarios. But our life is full of these subtle externalities in interactions with each other. Increasing our own freedom often reduces someone else's freedom. Freedom versus respect for others is in a constant tug of war when we're actually mindful of our actions.

Ditch "personal freedom" as a deontological basis. "Compassion for all living beings" is a much better choice.