freedom vs society

[k.brignell]

Must we sacrafice our freedom in order to live in society? And if so, is the sacrafice worth it?

[JuniperWoolf]

I think it's best to find a balance. A big system requires a beurocracy in order to operate properly, which is confining; however, living without anyone is impractical, because humans are social and need other humans (not just emotionally, but also for safety and resources). Heading towards one extreme or the other isn't the best idea, better to find a nice middle ground.

[jhampton002]

I think it's best to find a balance. A big system requires a beurocracy in order to operate properly, which is confining; however, living without anyone is impractical, because humans are social and need other humans (not just emotionally, but also for safety and resources). Heading towards one extreme or the other isn't the best idea, better to find a nice middle ground.

I agree with you. I think one must find that balance in order to lead a happy life.

[sami_Iraq]

I do not think so ... But we must endure terobles >>> to live

[mrv]

It also depends on where you are, what kind of society you're living in. One doesn't need to sacrifice personal freedom equally everywhere. So, getting that balance is also not equally easy, or for that matter difficult, everywhere. You might be needed to make too much of a sacrifice in one society and not a sacrifice at all in another. Besides, depending on the kind of person you are it might be more, or less, of a sacrifice for you than the others in the same society. As for the question whether the sacrifice is worth it or not, that's relative too. It might be in certain circumstances, might not be others.

[Delta40]

I think social contract theory and Hobbs Leviathan cover this dilemma. In this sense the term sacrifice is framed quite differently.

http://sociologyindex.com/social_contract_theoy.htm

[The Atheist]

Must we sacrafice our freedom in order to live in society?

Yes.


And if so, is the sacrafice worth it?

No.

That was easy, wasn't it?

I will expand to the extent that I firmly believe our society is actually the architect of our downfall as a species, thus making it definitely the wrong option.

Hunter-gatherers was our lot, but no, some smart arse had to go and discover agriculture.

The freedom sacrificed is evident every working day during rush hour.

[Cunninglinguist]

In society we must sacrifice some of our freedoms presumably and ideally for other ones. 7000 years ago in some places it may have taken 30 minutes to walk to a water hole and 30 minutes to walk back, not to mention that your water might not even be sanitary. Now we can turn on the tap just like that if we desire to do so; this frees up an hour of our day. Similar examples exist with other resources.

Of course you have to look at the society – was society all that beneficial to the Russians in 1917?

Considering we all have natural propensities to some degree to be mutualistic and altruistic towards each other, society’s existence is necessitated by our nature. Whether our nature works for or against us is another question, though I’d assume it works for us.

[angel92]

I agree that freedom must be sacraficed in order to live in a society. Do I believe that the giving up freedom is worth living in a society no. The reason being is that society tends to focus more on the group which then may restrict what you do. The majority live in a society and so I say that as a group we have no choice but to tolerate the cost of our freedom and find a perfect balance of both having freedom while still being in a society.

[L.M. The Third]

For me the question has to do with what freedoms would be sacrificed. I don't really like to rate freedoms on a scale of least to most important, but I do believe in "inalienable rights" which no situation can abrogate. The problem for me comes with ascertaining what those rights are and their parameters.

Naturally, when the right is one that effects me and that I feel strongly about, it seems inalienable, but my neighbor's rights, though I may profess to respect them, aren't as black and white.

I might feel very strongly about an individual's right to complete freedom of speech, but be apathetic or ambivalent about gun-control, because I view it as more of a potential threat. I might feel very strongly about religious liberty, but feel that a fundamentalist Mormon's desire to be a polygamist is motivated by something other than religious principle and can thus be prohibited.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

Freedoms are restricted formally and informally through laws, mores, and norms. Not all of these are positive for an individual though presumably some or most are - if not directly then indirectly - and it is impossible to give a universal yes or no answer to the second part of your question. Also, individuals and societies are too varied for the question to even be answered. Which society are we talking about? Which individual?

[Ecurb]

For me the question has to do with what freedoms would be sacrificed. I don't really like to rate freedoms on a scale of least to most important, but I do believe in "inalienable rights" which no situation can abrogate. The problem for me comes with ascertaining what those rights are and their parameters.

.

"Inalienable rights" are themselves restrictions on freedom. The "right to life" (for example) means nothing other than an obligation on the part of others not to kill you. This restricts their freedom. The "right to life" does not (and can not) protect one from tornadoes, cancers, and sunamis. Instead, it simply restricts the freedom of other people to kill you.

All "rights" restrict freedom. The right to free speech (for example) restricts the freedom of other people to punish you for what you say. So anyone who belives in "rights" necessarily believes in restricting freedom.

[Heteronym]

7000 years ago in some places it may have taken 30 minutes to walk to a water hole and 30 minutes to walk back, not to mention that your water might not even be sanitary. Now we can turn on the tap just like that if we desire to do so; this frees up an hour of our day.

You've simply stated a technical improvement. What does the invention of taps have to do with losing freedom in society?


Of course you have to look at the society – was society all that beneficial to the Russians in 1917?

Are you talking about the communist society? Well, the millions of people who spontaneously rose to tear down the Czarist society certainly thought it was good. Do you realise that just a few decades before 1917 landowners could still own serfs? That literacy was practically nil. Russia was still in the middle ages in 1917? 40 years after the revolution, Russia sent the first man into space. Since you're so fond of water taps and other inventions, surely you admire that.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

You've simply stated a technical improvement. What does the invention of taps have to do with losing freedom in society?


They're an accouterment fostered under the aegis of society? Like all other technologies?

[Ecurb]

What does the invention of taps have to do with losing freedom in society?

.

The answer is obvious. Without the infrastructure necessary to pipe water into all of the homes that have taps, the taps would be useless. The infrastructure is supported by taxes, which are mandatory. If you don't pay your taxes, you will be handcuffed and carted off to prison. Hence the loss of freedom.

In fact, two competing theories speculate about the origin of "civilization". One of these suggests that the complicated political and class structures that constitute civilization (and that entail some loss of freedom) developed in river valleys surrounded by deserts (the Indus, the Nile, the Tigris) because they facillitated large scale irrigation projects. So the development of public water works (ioncluding taps) led to slavery, conscripted labor, and the other less egregious losses of freedom associated with living in civilized countries.

[Heteronym]

Well, we must have a very different idea of what constitutes freedom then, because I don't consider a loss of freedom the necessity to pay taxes to support a service that benefits me, like tap water. I believe most people will think like me.

Loss of freedom is body scans in airports, police arrests without cause, the electorate's inability to prevent the political class from making laws the electors don't want and that benefit only a few. Things that have nothing to do with technological improvements.

[Ecurb]

Well, we must have a very different idea of what constitutes freedom then, because I don't consider a loss of freedom the necessity to pay taxes to support a service that benefits me, like tap water. I believe most people will think like me.

Loss of freedom is body scans in airports, police arrests without cause, the electorate's inability to prevent the political class from making laws the electors don't want and that benefit only a few. Things that have nothing to do with technological improvements.

Many people think of words based on their emotional connotations, instead of their literal meanings. If (for example) having tap water is a "good thing", it can't possibly entail a "loss of freedom" (which is a ‘bad thing”, the reasoning goes). However, based on the literal meaning of the word "freedom", anything one is forced to do by threat of physical imprisonment surely entails a "loss of freedom”. Like Heteronym, I think purified tap water is a good thing. It has promoted human health and well-being. I have no objection to paying taxes to support it. However, since the taxes are not voluntary, and are collected with threats of imprisonment, they entail a loss of freedom.

I also think locking up murderers is a good thing. It promotes social well-being. Nonetheless, I’m aware that locking up murderers takes away their “freedom”.

I believe human rights are a good thing -- as I pointed out earlier, though, the rights of one person impose a loss of freedom on others.

[L.M. The Third]

The "right to life" (for example) means nothing other than an obligation on the part of others not to kill you. This restricts their freedom.


Which is why government has its place, under bounds, because a perceived freedom may lead to utter anarchy.


The "right to life" does not (and can not) protect one from tornadoes, cancers, and sunamis. Instead, it simply restricts the freedom of other people to kill you.
That's natural law. It has nothing to do with the freedoms that are expected to be protected by government or law.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

Well, we must have a very different idea of what constitutes freedom then, because I don't consider a loss of freedom the necessity to pay taxes to support a service that benefits me, like tap water. I believe most people will think like me.

Loss of freedom is body scans in airports, police arrests without cause, the electorate's inability to prevent the political class from making laws the electors don't want and that benefit only a few. Things that have nothing to do with technological improvements.

What if every time you invented something it was stolen? You'd stop inventing right? Not to mention, when you're talking about something on such a large scale like utilities or roads, you couldn't even implement these things, financially or physically, without cooperation (or coercion).

[Ecurb]

Which is why government has its place, under bounds, because a perceived freedom may lead to utter anarchy.


That's natural law. It has nothing to do with the freedoms that are expected to be protected by government or law.

If freedom is valued, utopia must be an anarchy. Freedoms that are "protected by law" can ONLY be protected by restricting the freedom of others, because law can do nothing EXCEPT restrict people's freedoms. Property laws, for example, do nothing other than restrict the freedom of other people to drive particular cars and walk into particular houses.

It is, of course, true that if there were no laws, our freedoms might be restricted more than they are by the rule of law. We might be murdered, beaten, and kidnapped. Nonetheless, it is clearly the case that "rights" and all laws restrict freedom. Without handcuffs, gaols, billy clubs, and pistols (all of which restrict freedom), the law would be meaningless.

[L.M. The Third]

Again, law will ultimately violate certain perceived freedoms of individuals, while protecting the rights of the majority, who (hopefully) have instituted and elected a government through the understanding that anarchy is not freedom and that a functioning society is based upon self-control at the individual level. The question important to me is not if certain freedoms may be restricted, but what those freedoms are and how, when or why they may be restricted. When an authority arbitrarily restricts certain rights, such as religious liberty, it sets itself up to destroy both itself and the society it was established to protect.

[Ecurb]

Again, law will ultimately violate certain perceived freedoms of individuals, while protecting the rights of the majority, who (hopefully) have instituted and elected a government through the understanding that anarchy is not freedom and that a functioning society is based upon self-control at the individual level. The question important to me is not if certain freedoms may be restricted, but what those freedoms are and how, when or why they may be restricted. When an authority arbitrarily restricts certain rights, such as religious liberty, it sets itself up to destroy both itself and the society it was established to protect.

I'm sure "authority" would argue that the rights it restricts are not restricted "arbitrarily", but for good reason. For example, our belief in property rights allows individuals to restrict the right of others to walk across certain segments of God's Green Earth. Since we have a long history of property ownership, this seems reasonable to us. However, it might very well have seemed "arbitrary" to Native Americans 200 years ago (just as throwing someone in jail for religious practices seems arbitrary to us).

I'll grant that anarchy is not freedom -- however, full freedom is possible only under anarchy (because laws, by their very nature, restrict freedom). Unfortunately, humans have learned that laws are necessary, and that freedom tends to be even more egregiously restricted when laws are not enforced.

By the way, it isn't "perceived freedoms" that laws violate -- it's actual freedoms -- like the freedom of movement to walk where one chooses to walk (which is violated by property laws). Throwing someone in jail for walking where he chooses does not violate only his "perceived freedom" -- imprisonment restricts his actual freedom.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

If freedom is valued, utopia must be an anarchy. Freedoms that are "protected by law" can ONLY be protected by restricting the freedom of others, because law can do nothing EXCEPT restrict people's freedoms.

Let me get this straight. Law protects freedoms by restricting freedoms, but since you want to make sure that the take home is that law restricts freedom you ignore the first part of your sentence where you state that it grants freedom?

[Cunninglinguist]

A lot to respond to here...


Do you realise that just a few decades before 1917 landowners could still own serfs? That literacy was practically nil. Russia was still in the middle ages in 1917? 40 years after the revolution, Russia sent the first man into space. Since you're so fond of water taps and other inventions, surely you admire that.

Yes - the question I was attempting to raise is whether or not society is always beneficial to all (or most) of the individuals which comprise it, and, if not, whether it is worth keeping it in those instances. One could argue yes, as those instances are necessary steps to a better society, or no, as the costs outweigh the benefits. In my view I suppose I'd choose the former*, as I said before society is necessitated by our nature.



Well, we must have a very different idea of what constitutes freedom then, because I don't consider a loss of freedom the necessity to pay taxes to support a service that benefits me, like tap water. I believe most people will think like me.

Loss of freedom is body scans in airports, police arrests without cause, the electorate's inability to prevent the political class from making laws the electors don't want and that benefit only a few. Things that have nothing to do with technological improvements.

Judging from your first post and the tone it seemed to carry, I think you have gravely misjudged my position. To add to what Ecurb said, freedom is defined as a lack of constraints. Therefore, by definition, to have to pay* taxes is a direct and indirect constraint (loss of freedom) on the manner in which you may conduct your life; this is prima facie in virtue that it is self-explanatory and of its already sufficient justification in former posts. Though I have not said we necessarily loose our freedom by living in society, we just trade our freedoms for others, which, ideally as a wholly integrated society, we deem more valuable. This means to pay taxes inconveniences us in one way yet conveniences us in others (like with the tap).

I agree that body scans at the airports are unjustified in a number of ways, as a consequence I do not fly on airplanes anymore. Society is not as ideal as I have portrayed, which should've been obvious. That is why I raised the question whether or not it is worth it to keep it when it goes awry, when a minority asserts partial values onto a majority.


It is, of course, true that if there were no laws, our freedoms might be restricted more than they are by the rule of law. We might be murdered, beaten, and kidnapped. Nonetheless, it is clearly the case that "rights" and all laws restrict freedom. Without handcuffs, gaols, billy clubs, and pistols (all of which restrict freedom), the law would be meaningless.

This adds to what I've said. Instead of merely trading one freedom for another one which we value more, we may trade one freedom for two or more which we cumulatively value more.


If freedom is valued, utopia must be an anarchy.
Perhaps freedom should be our penultimate priority (the first being the Good, or whatever else you might label it); but the total freedom that anarchy wants is impossible. To start, to be totally free agents would mean that we have infinite resources (by resource I mean a means by which we can fulfill* any desire) at our disposal, which is in itself impossible.


Again, law will ultimately violate certain perceived freedoms of individuals, while protecting the rights of the majority

I have to contest that this is a blatant categorical error since there are obvious, innumerable instances where the law hurts the majority while it helps the minority. The many usually do not dictate the law, and even in today's first world countries you could say that this is still the case. The media controlled by the few tells us what to value and these values inevitably trickle into the governmental policies.

*edits

[L.M. The Third]

I know my statements are coming across as confused and contradictory. And actually I acknowledged that element in my views on the subject in my original post. Certain freedoms which I view as important, I naturally think should never be restricted, while I may easily view someone else’s need for freedom in a certain area, such as the case cited above of the Native American feeling free to traverse private property, as less necessary and easier to give up, while for them it isn‘t. I’m highly uncomfortable with the idea of certain freedoms being sacrificed for the good of the many. I see that as an idea that can be used to manipulate the masses into servility. But, of course, in acknowledging government, I do acknowledge that it necessitates the giving up of some freedoms. I still say that certain things must not be infringed on by law, but I realize that where those lines are drawn is sometimes problematic, because of differing values, perceptions and backgrounds. And I don't pretend to know exactly where or how those lines should be drawn.



I have to contest that this is a blatant categorical error since there are obvious, innumerable instances where the law hurts the majority while it helps the minority. The many usually do not dictate the law, and even in today's first world countries you could say that this is still the case. The media controlled by the few tells us what to value and these values inevitably trickle into the governmental policies.

You're right, of course. But in a country like America, it's given out that the government is supposed be by the people, of the people, for the people.

[Cunninglinguist]

I know my statements are coming across as confused and contradictory. And actually I acknowledged that element in my views on the subject in my original post. Certain freedoms which I view as important, I naturally think should never be restricted, while I may easily view someone else’s need for freedom in a certain area, such as the case cited above of the Native American feeling free to traverse private property, as less necessary and easier to give up, while for them it isn‘t. I’m highly uncomfortable with the idea of certain freedoms being sacrificed for the good of the many. I see that as an idea that can be used to manipulate the masses into servility. But, of course, in acknowledging government, I do acknowledge that it necessitates the giving up of some freedoms. I still say that certain things must not be infringed on by law, but I realize that where those lines are drawn is sometimes problematic, because of differing values, perceptions and backgrounds. And I don't pretend to know exactly where or how those lines should be drawn.

Should we invariably retain certain freedoms for everyone when, in some instances, these freedoms clearly are not good for than many? I can't answer that in full. To half answer it, if we analyze the consequences of such a retention from the perspective of the ultimate end and see that it ultimately procures good (and justifies the "utilitarianism of rights," as Nozick puts it) then it might be justified to keep them.

At the end of the day we can look back upon our history and see that the consequentialists and the deontologists have been arguing over whether what produces a Good state of affairs should have priority and should dictate the laws or what is Right should have priority and should dictate the laws (and how we define Good and Right are whole confounding questions in of themselves). Therefore I dont think one can blame a body for not knowing or admitting that they do not know.

[blazeofglory]

Well, we must have a very different idea of what constitutes freedom then, because I don't consider a loss of freedom the necessity to pay taxes to support a service that benefits me, like tap water. I believe most people will think like me.

Loss of freedom is body scans in airports, police arrests without cause, the electorate's inability to prevent the political class from making laws the electors don't want and that benefit only a few. Things that have nothing to do with technological improvements.

You are somewhat right but will the tax we pay be propelry utilized to the benefical end? Most of what we pay goes to the pockets of corrupt civil servents

[bounty]

again, its interesting how some threads just up and die.

I didn't read things closely, its possible what im about to say has been said in various forms, but I only noticed one person explicitly post about social contract theory, which to me is at the heart of the matter.

the purpose of government (or society if you will) is to protect the natural rights of the individual. prior to living in society, man lived in a state of nature, in which life was "nasty, brutish and short."

the movement from the state of nature to civilization requires we exchange some freedoms for other, more desirable freedoms.

one of the fun variants to these tensions involves competing paradigms of government---do our elected and hired officials see themselves as our servants to protect our rights, or as our dictatorial overlords?

[Danik 2016]

That's a very interesting question, bounty. But it seems that political themes are forbidden on this forum.

[bounty]

I read the moderators forbid talking about "politics" but almost all of life is predicated on some social-political philosophy, as is a great deal of literature, either directly, or indirectly.

I see the former (politics) as talking about candidates, current government officials, specific policies, political parties, etc,

I see the latter as talking about the deeper questions of our lives as individuals, in community, and those aspects of humanity vis-à-vis government in general.

but either ways okay---since there are so few of us here, I wasn't expecting to stimulate a conversation now, but rather in hopes of someone reading this down the road perhaps if the site experiences a rejuvenation.

[Danik 2016]

I quite agree with you bounty, but maybe the site experienced some trouble because of this,

[bounty]

I think you're right, but if I had to guess, it usually comes by virtue of the thread devolving into a heated argument with lots of insults, which ive actually seen happen in other topics too.

to give you an example of the pervasiveness though that I think I mentioned in my previous post---you particularly liked the post by Sancho where he quoted an author decrying the south for parents arranging marriages between relatives as opposed to letting the children chose themselves. in a very real way, such a culture fits right into this thread, and into overall picture of how the individuals fit into groups, or the relationship between individuals and those in authority.

[Danik 2016]

You are right Bounty, plus a lot of trolling during some times.
Who told you I don´t like about politics? I do certainly, if it is in an civilized way.
But the rules are very explicit about this. Maybe it would be a cas to clarify with Logos, now we are so few.

[bounty]

like I said though danik---its not my intention to stimulate a conversation. maybe a few years from now we'll still be here, some one else will pick up the thread, and we'll be back to it.

[Danik 2016]

Or maybe the rules will change.