Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

caspian88 · Mar 22, 2005, 12:17 pm

This is a really broad question, but which do you feel is more important and should be more protected?

RickSp · Mar 22, 2005, 01:58 pm

On this point I agree with Proudhon - “Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order.”

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 22, 2005, 02:18 pm

Any sentient being should be able to do whatever it can.

PatrickHenry · Mar 22, 2005, 03:03 pm

Your freedom to swing your arms ends before you touch my nose. Otherwise, feel free!

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 22, 2005, 07:44 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

Your freedom to swing your arms ends before you touch my nose. Otherwise, feel free!

If I can punch you in the nose, I should be able to do that. If I do do that, though, more than likely you'll do something back to me. You're free to do whatever you can do.

castille · Mar 23, 2005, 10:26 am

Both. I believe some form of freedom is necessary, but order is also necessary, especially for poor or developing nations.

JamesMcBride · Mar 23, 2005, 10:55 am

I think that in a republic - they are both as important as each other and that a balance needs to be struck.

I value my freedom but also, I want to continue to make the most of my freedom safe in the knowledge that order exists to keep a level of safety.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 23, 2005, 11:21 am

I think every sentient being is 100% responsible for maintaining the saftefy of its own freedom.

JamesMcBride · Mar 23, 2005, 11:23 am

So if I suspect that you might cause a danger to me - I am 100% responsible for making sure that you don't and / or never COULD pose a danger to me?

PatrickHenry · Mar 23, 2005, 12:53 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08

If I can punch you in the nose, I should be able to do that. If I do do that, though, more than likely you'll do something back to me. You're free to do whatever you can do.

You claim the freedom to punch my nose? Why?

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 23, 2005, 01:17 pm

Quote:

Quote by: JamesMcBride

So if I suspect that you might cause a danger to me - I am 100% responsible for making sure that you don't and / or never COULD pose a danger to me?

What I mean is that you shouldn't rely on 3rd parties to guarantee your saftey. Every man for himself.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 23, 2005, 01:19 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

You claim the freedom to punch my nose? Why?

The argument has nothing to do with claims. If I think I could punch your nose and I wanted to try to do it, I should try to do it. No one should stop my from trying. People should only try to stop me from succeeding.

PatrickHenry · Mar 23, 2005, 01:31 pm

tman_ndsu08:
You claim the freedom to try anything that you can conceive? If you "want" to do something, however outrageous, you claim the freedom to try it? And it is society"s obligation to make sure that the intentions to harm another do not succeed? What about other people's freedom to be unmolested?

You are going on my bottom of the gene pool list, man. And I am augmenting your thread: I hate to do this but...

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 23, 2005, 02:02 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

tman_ndsu08:
You claim the freedom to try anything that you can conceive? If you "want" to do something, however outrageous, you claim the freedom to try it? And it is society"s obligation to make sure that the intentions to harm another do not succeed? What about other people's freedom to be unmolested?

Not just anything you can conceive. I can conceive levitating and I want to try to do it, but that obviously isn't happening.

What I said was that you should be able to try to do anything you can conceive and could actually do, if you want to try it.

No one has any obligation to try and stop anyone from doing anything.

If they want to try and stop someone from doing something, and they can, then they should try to do it. But they shouldn't stop that person from trying to do it.

I also believe that no one has any rights. If someone trys to molest you, and you don't want them to, then your only possible options are to try and stop them or be molested.

mr.perfecto · Mar 23, 2005, 04:01 pm

You've crafted an opinion that is nothing so much as the absence of an opinion. I suspect that you haven't understood the question. It goes without saying that you have the ability to attempt to do anything you wish, the question is whether other people should exercise their own ability to attempt to stop you.

As the entire purpose of society is the establishment of order, it goes without saying that freedom is a secondary concern--every rule seeks to punish some ability to act. The questions always are What type of order? and Under who's direction? Once such rules are established and accepted, there is a predictable pattern of behavior that people will follow. Those patterns make long term planning possible, which makes future endeavors less risky. Of course, there being no honor among thieves, such agreements will probably eventually breakdown--most violently so. Any good social order must ultimately rest on giving individuals a reason to adhere to its rules.

But, not to be unclear. It is not my belief that freedom and order are enemies. Order is the selective use or restriction of freedom in order to achieve a desired end result.

Nono · Mar 23, 2005, 04:31 pm

Implying the voluntary surrender of a degree of personal freedom for a degree of personal benefit from the collective restriction.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 23, 2005, 07:07 pm

Quote:

Quote by: mr.perfecto

You've crafted an opinion that is nothing so much as the absence of an opinion. I suspect that you haven't understood the question. It goes without saying that you have the ability to attempt to do anything you wish, the question is whether other people should exercise their own ability to attempt to stop you.

As the entire purpose of society is the establishment of order, it goes without saying that freedom is a secondary concern--every rule seeks to punish some ability to act. The questions always are What type of order? and Under who's direction? Once such rules are established and accepted, there is a predictable pattern of behavior that people will follow. Those patterns make long term planning possible, which makes future endeavors less risky. Of course, there being no honor among thieves, such agreements will probably eventually breakdown--most violently so. Any good social order must ultimately rest on giving individuals a reason to adhere to its rules.

But, not to be unclear. It is not my belief that freedom and order are enemies. Order is the selective use or restriction of freedom in order to achieve a desired end result.

And what I'm saying is that "order" has no place in the universe. Individuals should be responsible for reacting to the actions of other individuals.

IE, there should be no group decisions.

castille · Mar 23, 2005, 10:28 pm

Technically we all have total freedom to do what we like.

However, other people also have the freedom to stop us.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 23, 2005, 11:01 pm

Quote:

Quote by: castille

Technically we all have total freedom to do what we like.

However, other people also have the freedom to stop us.

Exactly right.

JamesMcBride · Mar 24, 2005, 11:29 am

I don't think that's correct at all. I mean, that theoretically gives you the right to stop me enjoying my liberty.

I think it's more a case of: Treat others how you would wish to be treated.

So you could act however you wish - but then you must allow others to act as you would.

Mar 22, 2005, 12:17 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
caspian88 Molten Ash Posts: 85	Freedom or Order? This is a really broad question, but which do you feel is more important and should be more protected?

Mar 22, 2005, 01:58 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,589	On this point I agree with Proudhon - “Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order.” Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Mar 22, 2005, 03:03 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	Your freedom to swing your arms ends before you touch my nose. Otherwise, feel free! "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Mar 23, 2005, 10:26 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Both. I believe some form of freedom is necessary, but order is also necessary, especially for poor or developing nations. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Mar 23, 2005, 01:31 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,446	tman_ndsu08: You claim the freedom to try anything that you can conceive? If you "want" to do something, however outrageous, you claim the freedom to try it? And it is society"s obligation to make sure that the intentions to harm another do not succeed? What about other people's freedom to be unmolested? You are going on my bottom of the gene pool list, man. And I am augmenting your thread: I hate to do this but... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Mar 22, 2005, 02:18 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Any sentient being should be able to do whatever it can.

Mar 23, 2005, 10:55 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
JamesMcBride Canoe Champ Location: London, UK Posts: 171	I think that in a republic - they are both as important as each other and that a balance needs to be struck. I value my freedom but also, I want to continue to make the most of my freedom safe in the knowledge that order exists to keep a level of safety.

Mar 23, 2005, 11:21 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	I think every sentient being is 100% responsible for maintaining the saftefy of its own freedom.

Mar 23, 2005, 11:23 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
JamesMcBride Canoe Champ Location: London, UK Posts: 171	So if I suspect that you might cause a danger to me - I am 100% responsible for making sure that you don't and / or never COULD pose a danger to me?

Mar 23, 2005, 04:01 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	You've crafted an opinion that is nothing so much as the absence of an opinion. I suspect that you haven't understood the question. It goes without saying that you have the ability to attempt to do anything you wish, the question is whether other people should exercise their own ability to attempt to stop you. As the entire purpose of society is the establishment of order, it goes without saying that freedom is a secondary concern--every rule seeks to punish some ability to act. The questions always are What type of order? and Under who's direction? Once such rules are established and accepted, there is a predictable pattern of behavior that people will follow. Those patterns make long term planning possible, which makes future endeavors less risky. Of course, there being no honor among thieves, such agreements will probably eventually breakdown--most violently so. Any good social order must ultimately rest on giving individuals a reason to adhere to its rules. But, not to be unclear. It is not my belief that freedom and order are enemies. Order is the selective use or restriction of freedom in order to achieve a desired end result.

Mar 23, 2005, 04:31 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 7,134	Implying the voluntary surrender of a degree of personal freedom for a degree of personal benefit from the collective restriction. "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

Mar 23, 2005, 10:28 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Technically we all have total freedom to do what we like. However, other people also have the freedom to stop us. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Mar 24, 2005, 11:29 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
JamesMcBride Canoe Champ Location: London, UK Posts: 171	I don't think that's correct at all. I mean, that theoretically gives you the right to stop me enjoying my liberty. I think it's more a case of: Treat others how you would wish to be treated. So you could act however you wish - but then you must allow others to act as you would.