See, there it is again (I do an hour plus is enough time to assume that you’ll not be responding to my earlier post; if it isn’t I apologize in advance.)
Is that all you mean? That an action may be irresponsible (even though legal)?
That is the point, one which I never would have guessed would be controversial, either. What’s your difficulty with it?
My difficulty is that the actual phrase does not reflect the meaning I just put forth. As I’ve said, I’m having difficulty parsing it, which is exactly why I asked for clarification. You seem to be using it as an irrefutable, absolute foundation on which to build an argument. But, I’m not sure it does the work that you need it to do to provide that basis.
The logical term “entails” is not the same as the milquetoast “may be”. “Freedom” is not freedom when it is necessary to add qualification. “Responsibility” is not necessarily equated with an action.
If you insist on using the phrase “freedom entails responsibility” to anchor your points, claiming a meaning that I just don’t see, I’ll just let it go and not pay attention to those points. (Good day to you, sir.) If, on the other hand, you point me to a Hohfieldian theory about the balance of rights and responsibilities (or provide some other coherent explanation), I’ll gladly read what you say (and hopefully pick up some knowledge along the way).
I was really just hoping that there was a “there” there.