Usually, yes -- my point is just that there is no absolute standard which delineates which freedoms are better than others. This, by the way, does not make me some sort of mushy relativist. Some standards of freedom are better than others -- but they are better at achieving certain outcomes, not because a deity or a law of nature makes them better. My intent is to make the reader think about freedom in a new way -- as an organizing principle of society -- and not as some constant that all humans must necessarily agree on.
Exactly so. As a perhaps trivial example, in the country of my birth (USA), I was not free to distill ethanol for my own consumption - it's a federal crime with severe penalties. In my adopted country (NZ), I am free to do this, and stills are sold in shops. Different societies will always have activities which are restricted compared to other societies.... not as some constant that all humans must necessarily agree on.
Interesting example. I didn't know that distilling was a right there. I had great uncle who nearly blew himself up with a still during prohibition, so perhaps I'll just live with that particular constraint... I saw the traffic from NZ in my Google stats. Nice to have voice to attach to the number. Thanks.
Thought of another interesting freedom I now have, as a Kiwi. I can vacation in Cuba if I want.
I wouldn't call it a right, exactly - but in this context I would definitely call it a social freedom - perhaps akin to pot use in Amsterdam. Seems to me that distilling is much more dangerous under strict prohibition, because prohibition encourages secrecy and discourages the flow of information about good / safe practice. It's not very dangerous at all, if you know what you're doing and follow some basic safety precautions.