Freedom or security?

[Nuvendil]

hershel_layton said:

Nuvendil said:

The most tragic irony - though for me it provokes a chuckle more than a sigh - is that in this current society that pays lip service relativism and a lack of moral and philosophical objective truths has more black-and-white argumentation and stagnation than there was at the opening of the 20th century, a far more objectivist society as far as underlying worldview goes.  That's right, a worldview about blithely accepting all ways of thinking equally has in fact bred more harsh bifurcation than we've seen in centuries.

But then is it that shocking?  True debate, true discussion comes from a pursuit of higher understanding, truth, a step forward.  You can't take a step forward with no destination.  Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, René Descartes, Kant, Kierkegaard, Leibniz, all the great minds longed for understanding.  If there's no actual truth, nothing to really understand, what is there to pursue?  To drive true discussion and debate?  Nothing.  By throwing out a real truth or understanding to achieve, relativism throws out all incentive to pursue intellectual discussion.  Which isn't surprising; happened the last several times this kind of worldview rose up. Instead it devolves into the most crass, go-nowhere form of argumentation:  the "in it to win it" mindset that only cares about winning and not learning a thing.  A society that nonchalantly shrugs its shoulders in regard to whether there are objective truths is one that opens itself to being led along by shills, politicians, and "activists" (read "leeches") that will happily use extremes and bifurcation to stir up outrage and fanatical support.  

But that's enough railing on postmodern society for one thread.

I'm not sure if this is criticism against my post, but if it is- I wasn't intending to make this black-white.

 

It was a thread I quickly put together... ;D  

 

In regards to your posts, I can't make much of a response to. They're written beautifully, and are in line with the common thoughts of many people in society today.

I was more just ruminating on the irony of the current society :P

I know you weren't trying to start something.  It's just that yes or no questions about a complex issue like reach of government power is something that always makes me itch.

I mean, let me just ask you:  what *objective* advantage is there in a Democratic Republic - or any representative government - vs an Absolute Monarchy?  I know this will boil some people's blood, but the answer is none.  On paper, the monarchy is superior in every way.  A good King will guide his country well with faster decision implementation and more efficient decision making and will execute far swifter and more sure justice.  Even the best democratic republic wouldn't compare since bureaucracy would ensure it all ran slower and with less precision. 

So why don't we have Monarchies everywhere?  Because we recognize that we are flawed.  And that flawed humanity needs structure but we are the ones who have to *staff* that governing body.  And thus it is statistically inevitable that a bad king will come along and everything will go to crap.  Which brings me to America and similar setups.  Look, our government setup might not be perfect, it might fluctuate.  But what we do have is a complex set up of hierarchy, jurisdictions, limitations, checks, and internal rules and a constitution that as clearly as possible defines the rights of the people.  And for all the hate it gets, after decades of lobbying and corruption brewhaha, the country is still far from a big coorporation's paradise distopia that some describe it as.  Big companies regularly get bent over barrels and forced to pay millions in lawsuit settlements, they constantly get whipped into line with regulations and fines, and the coorporate taxes here are exceptionally high.  It clearly works better than most give it credit for.  I think part of the problem that fuels this endless condemnation and constantly swinging argument is the fact people just refer to all governments and their members as "the Government," like some kind of alien species that seeks to rule the world.  Governments are made up of people, there's good and bad in them just like all groups of people.  When you look at it that way, a lot of things become self evident. 

As for the specific question of "security vs freedom,"  you cannot have practical freedom without security.  You can have it on paper, but your options will in fact be limited considerably by having to fend for yourself.  As in all things, you need checks and balances.  Governments need to have structured forces and authority to pursue and punish those who violate the rights of others.  Cause let's face it, community justice is usually sucky and innacurate (wild west lynch mobs anyone?).  But simultaneously it must be balanced by defined boundaries.  You give too much power to the government, it will inevitably get out of hand.  You give too little and your rights will be trampled on by your fellows.