Risk Free- Reduction

What degree of risk towards others should be acceptable to allow freedom?

Is it a risk to have a reduction of freedom, or are there risk-free reductions of freedom?

With freedom, comes responsibility. With many actions of freedom, comes risk towards others. There is of course also risk towards oneself, but that is another subtopic, which I considered in previous posts; Free- Be. and Reduction by Regulation. Freedom of action to awarefully harm others may be another subtopic, but for this I’ll focus on unintentional harm of others.

Risking unintentional harm towards others, may seem at first like it should never be allowed, but many things are actually allowed which put others at risk, and which you might do every day. If you drive any vehicle, you are putting others at risk. Even if you drive safely, you are still putting others at risk, since a fluke accident could occur, such as mechanical malfunction, or health issue or an animal could cause you to lose control of the vehicle and crash into someone else. But the risk is to a sufficiently minimal degree, that society has decided it is an acceptable risk of harming others, for the benefit of freedom which it allows. Driving in conditions which have sufficient evidence to suggest the risk is too high to justify the freedom, are not considered acceptable, such as impaired driving. So it is the degree of risk which seems to be key for determining what freedoms should be acceptable.

Most risks towards others are only a risk towards those who don't choose to protect themselves. For eg most people could choose to significantly protect themselves from the risk of being harmed by another vehicle, by choosing to go near roads as little as possible, and use excessive protective gear at times necessary to go near roads. This ability for individuals to protect themselves seems reasonable to take into account for determining whether or not an action of freedom should be permitted. The freedom to drive in safe conditions seems reasonable to allow, considering the minimal risk towards others and ability for others to protect themselves. 

So what degree of risk towards others is sufficient to restrict a freedom of action for everyone? It seems practical that the degree of risk should be reasonably high and have significant evidence, in order to restrict an action. Other examples of restrictions of freedom of actions which put others at a degree of risk which was determined to be too high in many societies, would be; weapon ownership/ recreational usage, waste management, and building codes for public buildings/ infrastructure. Most of these seem to have reasonable evidence of risk towards others, for the degree of restriction of freedom. 

Examples of freedom of actions which put others at minimal risk, and are permitted, could be virtually endless depending on how direct of risk and how minimal of risk is considered. Egs of direct but minimal risk could be; simply walking inside any building where others are, risks collapsing the floor and harming others inside, touching a wall risks collapsing the ceiling, and going in public risks spreading disease to others (now, and even before a certain more recent virus). These risks towards others have been considered minimal enough that restricting the freedom of everyone, outweighs the risk towards others (who can protect themselves anyway).

Less direct risks towards others are more difficult to notice, determine, and prove, but could include almost any action anyone takes throughout the day. For eg, purchasing food at the store could risk someone starving to death from unavailability of that item. Even if there’s many in stock, perhaps more won't be shipped in (if for eg the leader of that society irrationally reduces freedom for personal choice of risk of medical procedure, which causes workers (such as truck drivers) to lose their jobs). The risk of harm towards others is minimal, of buying any product, so it is a reasonable freedom. Using any electricity, any gas motor, or even any product made from wood or plants, puts others at indirect risk of harm from climate change. Buying any unhealthy fast food also puts others at indirect risk of heart disease or cancer (top 2 causes of death I believe), since the products are more easily available and advertised to others as a result of your purchase. These indirect risks towards others could be quite significant, but are very difficult to determine or prove.

In all, it seems many actions we take, put others at some degree of risk. But when the risk is minimal, most actions seem to be reasonable to be considered acceptable freedoms. If risks of an action are unproven, and others have their own choice to protect themselves, does it make sense to Risk Freedom Reduction?