• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Freedom

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
Is it the lack of rules and regulations that gives us freedom or do the rules and regulations give us more freedom.
 

Circle_One

Well-Known Member
Lightkeeper said:
Is it the lack of rules and regulations that gives us freedom or do the rules and regulations give us more freedom.
I think it's having these rules and regulations that infact give us more freedom. (Though I'm sure if you asked an anarchist, they'd say different :D) The way I see it is, that it's because of these rules that I am free to walk safely down the street (for the most part anyway, I know there are still muggings, rapings, murders, etc.) without worry, whereas, IMO, if these rules were not in place our cities would be overrun by people who would otherwise be in jail.

I feel as if I'm rambling, but trust me, this post DID make sense in my head.
 

Fluffy

A fool
The purpose of rules and regulations is control. Therefore, the less of them you have, the more freedom you will experience. Your example, C1, of people overruning cities who should be in jail is an example of more freedom not less. Everyone has the freedom to do whatever they like.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Lightkeeper said:
Is it the lack of rules and regulations that gives us freedom or do the rules and regulations give us more freedom.

Well, I actually think it's a combination of the two. Rules cannot give freedom. They can only take them away. There simply isn't any way around that. However, without the rules, we'd be in a situation like C1 alluded to: muggings, brutality, rape, etc. Total anarchy would simply give the man with the biggest guns the power.

I'm all for a small, limited government to keep that in check and help me maintain my liberty.
 

Doc

Space Chief
Hujaro,

You would love the Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousau. He said pretty much the same things and that government with too many regulations took man's freedoms away from him.
 

Circle_One

Well-Known Member
Fluffy said:
The purpose of rules and regulations is control. Therefore, the less of them you have, the more freedom you will experience. Your example, C1, of people overruning cities who should be in jail is an example of more freedom not less. Everyone has the freedom to do whatever they like.
But in such a case, I would not be free of fear, nor would I be free to walk the streets safely, so therefore, I would not have the freedom to do whatever I like, as I would like my family and I to have the freedom to not fear leaving our houses. To me, this seems I would have less freedom and those who would rather disobey the laws our countries have set forth would then have more freedom. But still, I think I would have less freedom.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Lightkeeper said:
Is it the lack of rules and regulations that gives us freedom or do the rules and regulations give us more freedom.
Actually, freedoms are an expression of recognized innate rights in law. In organizations rules tend to maintain order and curtail freedoms
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Fluffy said:
The purpose of rules and regulations is control. Therefore, the less of them you have, the more freedom you will experience. Your example, C1, of people overruning cities who should be in jail is an example of more freedom not less. Everyone has the freedom to do whatever they like.

You are absolutely right. Their purpose is control, and we need some of that control.

Let's have a quick thought experiment. We drop a group of fifty people onto an island with a single freshwater source, and scarce food. They don't know each other, but they do speak the same language. They weren't prepared for this.

In a very short while, you will have some of the more aggressive people seizing control of the resources in order to assert themselves and extend their wealth, and they will do so with a small group of people to act as their work force. If the people on the island are lucky, the folks who seized control of this stuff will be gentle, but that isn't often the case. In all likelyhood, we would see a couple of monarchies where these guys could do pretty much as they pleased once they've established charisma.

It would be the same way in a city or the like. Someone has to control resources, and those people will make the rules. That's what every gang, drug lord, government, and business tries to do. They target a commodity or group of them and take as much control of it as possible. In an anarchy, there would be a vacume, and these go-getters would have the people completely at their disposal.

The result would be violence in the streets as C1 described, but even more so, thuggish bosses running the show. There wouldn't be any safety. The people would have to be very lucky to get a good governing system. So, the sacrifice of some freedoms is neccessary to preserve the whole.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
pah said:
Actually, freedoms are an expression of recognized innate rights in law. In organizations rules tend to maintain order and curtail freedoms

Pah, I don't know where you would lend your sentiments there, but it is nice to hear someone point out that rights are ours regardless of the government and are simply curtailed by it, never granted.

Frubals to thee!
 
Top