NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom is a great and glorious idea. I truly love being free to go about as I please, with out answering to anyone. However, I wonder if there is such a thing as too much freedom? Where does a society draw a line on what is considered excess freedoms? What would be an example of that? Is too much freedom a bad thing?


(I'm kinda bored right now, so please entertain me with some thought out responses!)

Obviously some believe there's too much freedom, otherwise nobody would Hate Freedom.

Obviously freedoms are limited, I don't see why we should go through and list every law that exists...

Liberty is the right to do as you see fit so long as you do not infringe upon the property or person of another. Tyranny is when someone has the freedom to harm others. That is the only time there can be too much freedom.

The pendulum constantly swings between personal liberty and social responsibility.

In the 1940's most people seemed to be in uniform; they did things together, sang together and ate together - as well as sometimes dying together. Some personal freedom was sacrificed for the war effort - because their countries were defending greater freedoms such as the freedom to exist.
I was a teenagers in the 60's - for those who don't know what that meant and what was meant by freedom then, here is "San Francisco"
The classic hippie song!



http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xB2nqzkE86Q&NR=1

Our generation grew up and the pendulum moved even further towards freedom. Economic Rationalism via Reagan and Thatcherism swung the pendulum further towards Individualism and away from social responsibility. "Redheart" from the "Railway Arms" forum has this to say on Thatcher's philosophy:
Thatcher started from a liberal philosophical viewpoint and thus the individual should be able to do anything unless you can prove it harms somebody else. Hence a much more libertarian philosophy. From this basic difference we can trace all teh failings of Thatcher.

1:There is no society, just the individual. The prominence of I, Me, Mine and the death of those strands. Thus as a small child in the 1970s Sundays were a family day and trading was severly restricted. Why? Family was more important that economy. Family was a basic building block of society and was vital to creating shared values, a nurturing environment and of course discpline. Thatcher introduced full, open Sunday trading, and there has never been a family day since. The consequences of this have been huge. But it does not matter about its contribution to the breakdown of teh family unit, and the knock on effects on crime and social dislocation because somebody can make money!

2:Similarly Thatcher deregulated television and instead of a system geared towards quality we have a system geared towards quantity and profit.

We have been coming out of three decades of economic and political individualism. With th eWall Street crisis and the defeat of the Neo-Cons, the pendulum may well swing back towards great social responsibility. I look forward to the balance - particularly with people respecting others more and a balance between 'rights" and "responsibilities". As a teacher, I got really annoyed with students insisting on their rights while refusing to acknowledge their responsibilities.
In our generation Kids like that were called "spoilt".

Freedom is a great and glorious idea. I truly love being free to go about as I please, with out answering to anyone. However, I wonder if there is such a thing as too much freedom? Where does a society draw a line on what is considered excess freedoms? What would be an example of that? Is too much freedom a bad thing?


(I'm kinda bored right now, so please entertain me with some thought out responses!)

There is no such thing as too much freedom. There might be too much protection of the consequences, though, which can be a bad thing, yes.

There is no such thing as too much freedom. There might be too much protection of the consequences, though, which can be a bad thing, yes.

So the freedom to kill is a good thing?

Liberty is the right to do as you see fit so long as you do not infringe upon the property or person of another. Tyranny is when someone has the freedom to harm others. That is the only time there can be too much freedom.

I can agree with this

So the freedom to kill is a good thing?

You want to ask that a soldier?

You want to ask that a soldier?They're not exactly free to kill whomever they please, even if they're a lot less restricted than the average Joe.

Your freedom ends where my freedom starts.

They're not exactly free to kill whomever they please, even if they're a lot less restricted than the average Joe.

Your freedom ends where my freedom starts.

Yes, and if you go over that line, you'll have to face consequences.
But generally, you're free to do anything really.

Yes, and if you go over that line, you'll have to face consequences.
But generally, you're free to do anything really.Nah, if there's non-related consequences to your actions (such as facing a murder trial as opposed to having to face angry relatives), then you're not free to do as you please in the first place.

My freedom should stop at the end of someone else's nose.

My freedom should stop at the end of someone else's nose.

... and this is a great opportunity to refer back to the First Date Etiquette thread (RIP) and say that this is the perfect explanation for why it is wrong to try and pick your partner's nose.

... and this is a great opportunity to refer back to the First Date Etiquette thread (RIP) and say that this is the perfect explanation for why it is wrong to try and pick your partner's nose.

That's a literal interpretation, yes.

My freedom should stop at the end of someone else's nose.

*trips SaintB*

Try yelling "bomb!" in a crowded theater then.

*trips SaintB*

Try yelling "bomb!" in a crowded theater then.

*dodges* I'm not dumb enough to try that. Maybe I would, if the movie really sucked...

I think it was Benjamin Franklin that first said what I first posted in here.

*trips SaintB*

Try yelling "bomb!" in a crowded theater then.Yeah, but the metaphorical noses of the people in the crowded theater would have been metaphorically punched in that case.

Ironic as this may sound, being a neo-Nazi ought to be banned.

Yeah, but the metaphorical noses of the people in the crowded theater would have been metaphorically punched in that case.

Metaphorically speaking of course.

Liberty is the right to do as you see fit so long as you do not infringe upon the property or person of another.

So am I free to dump toxic waste into the river or slaughter wildlife as I see fit? Can I spread lies about my neighbor? Can a parent do drugs into oblivion as long as their children have the material means to continue their lives?

Tyranny is when someone has the freedom to harm others. That is the only time there can be too much freedom.

What about anarchy?

Although your statement starts in the right place, it does ignore a lot of the restrictions needed in order to preserve a properly functioning society. The range of freedom is limited by the balance struck between the needs of the individual and those of society. As evidenced by NS, there is always a trade off.

So am I free to dump toxic waste into the river or slaughter wildlife as I see fit? Can I spread lies about my neighbor? Can a parent do drugs into oblivion as long as their children have the material means to continue their lives?All of these infringe on the property or person of another, except for possibly the last one.

All of these infringe on the property or person of another, except for possibly the last one.

Yeah, OK, the slander/libel issue was a bit of a stretch, but I don't see the environment as being "property of another".

Liberty is the right to do as you see fit so long as you do not infringe upon the property or person of another. Tyranny is when someone has the freedom to harm others. That is the only time there can be too much freedom.
What about the tyranny of the majority?

Yeah, OK, the slander/libel issue was a bit of a stretch, but I don't see the environment as being "property of another".Apart from the debateable argument that it belongs to all citizens of the country, dumping toxic waste into a river will pretty much be guaranteed to affect someone else down river.

Apart from the debateable argument that it belongs to all citizens of the country, dumping toxic waste into a river will pretty much be guaranteed to affect someone else down river.

I could counter that with "what if no one lives down-stream" but I won't ;).

The bigger issue that I am pointing out is that restrictions sometimes need to be placed on freedoms in the present, even though they may not actually have a direct, immediate effect on an individual or group of human beings.

Freedom is a great and glorious idea. I truly love being free to go about as I please, with out answering to anyone. However, I wonder if there is such a thing as too much freedom? Where does a society draw a line on what is considered excess freedoms? What would be an example of that? Is too much freedom a bad thing?


Yes, there can be too much freedom. Example, by the laws of our countries, we are not allowed to kill people we dislike. We would be more free if there wasn't this prohibition: though, I woulnd't call that a good situation.

The point is that ABSOLUTE freedom is nothing more than the "law of the jungle": the strong exploits the weak, pure and simple.
To keep a society working (and we need a society to stay alive and continue our species) you have to restrict freedom and strike a balance between freedom (personal freedom, individualism: liberté), equality (rights, justice, conventions: egalité)and solidarity (friendship, empathy: fraternité).

Most of the political debate of the last 220 years is about finding the ideal balance between LEF - and of course there aren't two people on Earth with the same ideas.

I could counter that with "what if no one lives down-stream" but I won't ;). Actually, you can't. Someone will be living downstream, or at least earning a living there. Even if you live close to the River's mouth, you'll likely be affecting the tourist industry by destroying coral reefs, or the fishing industry by poisoning or killing their catch.
Funnily enough, dumping waste into a river is the poster example for externalities, that is costs for an action that someone else ends up paying for.
The bigger issue that I am pointing out is that restrictions sometimes need to be placed on freedoms in the present, even though they may not actually have a direct, immediate effect on an individual or group of human beings.I can see that, but I disagree insofar as I believe that the definition of "my nose" can be stretched to include your environment.

Tyranny is when someone has the freedom to harm others. That is the only time there can be too much freedom.

Well, actually, in tyranny ONLY the tyrant has absolute freedom. In a complete lawlessness, EVERYONE would be free to act as he wants (including harming others), but that would be a too-much-freedom situation again, don't you think so?

there is such a thing as the wrong kinds of freedom, the freedom to rob others of theirs, every so called freedom that grants THAT, which are destructive of freedom and truly no freedoms at all. and that is the kind of so called freedoms so called conservatism, or neoconism i suppose actually, has been moving us inexorably in the direction of.

Yes, there can be too much freedom. Example, by the laws of our countries, we are not allowed to kill people we dislike. We would be more free if there wasn't this prohibition: though, I woulnd't call that a good situation.

The point is that ABSOLUTE freedom is nothing more than the "law of the jungle": the strong exploits the weak, pure and simple.
To keep a society working (and we need a society to stay alive and continue our species) you have to restrict freedom and strike a balance between freedom (personal freedom, individualism: liberté), equality (rights, justice, conventions: egalité)and solidarity (friendship, empathy: fraternité).

Most of the political debate of the last 220 years is about finding the ideal balance between LEF - and of course there aren't two people on Earth with the same ideas.



Very well said. Almost poetic! Just so we have something to talk about I will play the bad guy.


I propose the more orderly and just a society is, the more freedoms everyone enjoys. Just because you have the freedom to jump off a bridge doesn't mean you should.

For the most part laws are just common sense.

Don't take things that don't belong to you

You have the freedom to break into anyone's house you feel like and take anything you feel like. Society has the right to stop you by any means possible and put you away so you don't harm others.


Don't hurt, harm or kill other people

You have the freedom to punch anyone you like in the nose. They have the right to punch you back. Society has the right to put you away so you won't punch others.

Don't lie.

The consequences of lying are that if you are caught people may not believe you in the future. In print or damaging lies, the person who was wronged has the right to seek restitution

Law and order just make sense. It is a shame we have to write them down in the first place.