Liberty or order
 

We always need to find a good balance between liberty or order. It swings toward order during times or war and such, and toward liberty during other times.

So, what would you prefer? liberty or order?


I kinda like the lockean theory and other theories such, and i lean heavily toward liberty, what's your swing on this?

The overwhelming majority of people lead automated, programmed, circumscribed, and manipulated lives. They need very much to believe they are "free".

I favor order with the illusion of "freedom".

I don't think the two are separable - I do not believe you can have liberty without order. Liberty without order is chaos. Look at ever nation that has suddenly gained liberty without order.

Without order there is no freedom, if there was chaos are you truly free?

Freedom... Freedom... Freedom...
I don't think the poll so far (5 for liberty, 1 for order) represents the posts I've been reading.

It is true, freedom can only be built upon a certain amount of order. But more importantly than that, freedom is a concept. A state of mind. An illusion. Many things. And: The way people chicken and run because of mass media manipulation these days is just ridiculous, in my opinion.

Iraq is an example of liberty - with no order. Do you like what you are seeing?

There's a quote by Franklin. One of the members around here has it as a sig.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There are many counterexamples, that is to say, countries with order and no liberty. Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, China, on and on. Either liberty or order without the other is a failure. That does not invalidate the importance or need for either. I am no less horrified by a police state than anarchy. But if we must swing the balance in the favor of one or the other, I'll take liberty any day.

I don't believe that there is a reason to have to choose between the two. I think there can be a happy medium where the two are balanced.

Must we choose? Can’t we all just sit back and be told that everything is ok like we always have?

Gotta be alive first to have any sense of liberty, it'd be great if people would leave you alone, but alas, we live in reality. I think I'd prefer not to get blown up by a terrorist.

cnor, you ain't nobody's fool, are you? Well spoken.

I don't see why one must be exclusive of the other. I would prefer orderly freedom.

I am sure that there is a happy medium somewhere, but if it came right down to it, I would take freedom...I can always create order with a 12 guage and a handful of buckshot... :)

What a question! It depends if were talking Road Warrior kind of liberty without order than no I would not prefer that. Actually I have nothing to base what a totally liberized society would be.

I f applied to my life I would rather have liberty. A heart surgeon would appear to lead a life of order. Possibly having a secretary do his planning, a steady apteient load, basically solid structure, total order. But if he is always on call, a large patient folow up based, the doctor cant go where they want when they want, They have no liberty in their life. Liberty on a singular scale to me means having the ability to do what you want when you want.

ON a large scale within society, I would rather have order.

the more order you have, the less liberties you have.

and the more liberties you have, the less order.

This is exactly what I was going to say... there has to be a balance between the two.

The US typically favours more Liberty (or as Art puts it the illusion of Liberty) over order. At least they did before 9/11 the Patriot act, DMCA, etc all serve to limit many of freedoms Americans have come to take for granted...

This whole thread is almost painful to me... The question you pose initially is vague to say the least. Is this a choice between anarchy and a dictatorship? Hardly... Nevertheless, I'd like to address a couple of the other posts...
No, Iraq is NOT an example of liberty without order, it is an example of chaos created by an oppressed people, all continuing to ignore the rights of others.

exerpt from an August 5, 2002 article by Alex Epstien from the Ayn Rand Institute: (paraphrased)
"the choice between a terrorized free country and a less-terrorized police state is a false alternative. There is at root no conflict between the values of liberty and security.

Liberty and security are not opposing goals; to the contrary, the second is a means to the first. A proper government exists to protect the freedom of its citizens, by securing their individual rights. The security relevant in this context is the security from the only thing that can violate our rights: the threat of (initiated) force. A proper government uses its police powers?both domestic and military?to prosecute those who attack its citizens' liberty, whether the attackers are criminals at home or hostile states abroad.

The end that security serves - liberty - delimits the type of action government may take. It cannot, for instance, throw everyone in prison, in the name of securing Americans against the possibility of robbery or murder. The individual's freedom cannot be safeguarded by being abrogated. A government that arbitrarily uses its police powers is destroying the very value it is supposed to be securing?as every police state in history has shown.
(end exerpt)

It's important to remember that man is a rational being. Reason, as man?s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual?s choice. The proper standard of ethics is: that which is required by man?s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man?s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem.

That being said, then to survive as anything other than a mindless brute, requires cooperation. Advancement requires that we specialize in our areas of expertise and ability. Then we engage in capitalism. (this is NOT necessarily a GOVERNMENT at this point, but a method of RATIONALLY exchanging value for value) Man - every man - is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; We must act socially in such a way that no man attempts to seek values from another by means of physical force. We must deal with each other as traders, giving value for value by free mutual concent for mutual benefit.

This is liberty, and it is order. Liberty must be based on individual rights. and the government shoul exist only to protect those rights..

There is no "illusion" of liberty or freedom here, there is freedom. no-one has the "right" to take from another, that's simply not freedom, it's tyranny.. There is no "right" to be a dictator. Those who believe that those types of things are "rights" or "freedoms" must ask themselves if they are only wishing to enslave or use others, and call it a "right" to justify their actions.....

It’s not possible for a society to exist without order. If chaos occurs in a society, some form of order almost immediately replaces it.

As toxic pointed out, it’s wrong to think of liberty and order as a trade off. Order and liberties are two very different things and cannot really be compared. Most societies have a number of distinct liberties and the apparent tradeoffs between liberty and order are usually trade offs between different liberties.

I voted for liberty. and i also see it like Art. it's my illusion of the moment.

as far as order. from what i've learned by studying people is that most of the super threat people get put in place eventually.

i know order must exist. however, i think people generally can do a lot more than they think if they were leaderless. they'd have no choice but to think for themselves.

i could be wrong.

Well you know what they said abt Hitler; "at least he got the trains to run on time". I think maybe I'll lean toward liberty. Not move all the way over to that square but at least lean that way.

Close! It was Mussolini!

Give me liberty or give me death.

I hate having personal freedoms reduced during a time of war/crisis but unfortunately it seems to be a necessary evil. This doesn't mean I won't protest it though.

With liberty, you must have responsibility. If our citezenry were capable of responsibly handling liberty, we wouldn't need our bloated civil and criminal codes, nor the need for such secrecy in the affairs of our government. The minute we decided that the worker bees were too dumb to trust was the minute we lost our liberty for order. If we raised everyone to the higher levels of integrity and responsibility, order would follow naturally, but it would be an order based on consesus rather than legislation.

Unfortunately, our legislators and elected officials have given us the line "Trust us, it's for your own good." so many times that people in America have become drones. The USA PATRIOT act is not about countering terrorism, but exerting more "order". Notice how we always hear of a New World "Order", and not a New World Republic, or even a New World Democracy.

I VOTE for liberty.

PS Good post, Toxic!

I agree with this statement.