Does FREEDOM mean ANARCHY?

Question

We are want to live in a fee soceity..but what if your freedom clashes with someone else's freedom?

Should the minority have to give way to the majority?? Should the rights of minoirty be protected against the wishes of the majority??

Would it be possible to have a truely free soceity...?

Answer 1

YES but humans cannot handel absoulte freedom its been proven oh so many times. and why should the whole suffer for the minorty? i believe in anarchy the only problem is when theres even the slightest cahos some one evil usally comes into power we cant win. i try to live by a code of honnor and will say f*ck the law if they try to stop it

Answer 2

Freedom in the U.S. means what is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It does not mean do anything you want at anytime. That is chaos.

People in the U.S. are expected to assimilate. The United States is a country where many immigrants came and worked very hard to have a good life. These immigrants were proud to learn English and contribute to the society.

Now, there is a problem with immigrants who come on temporary visas or sneak across the border. They come to work or they come for a political reason. Those illegal immigrants do not have the same rights that are granted to U.S. citizens.

People from certain ethnic groups have certain needs, such as halal food for Muslims, kosher food for Jews and vegetarian food for Hindus. This is something that they must manage without affecting those who do not have those same demands. One of the exceptions to this is smokers. Smokers subject everyone around them to their smoke and the great medical expense caused by smoking is borne by every taxpayer in medical costs. So that puts smokers in a different category. Now there are laws against smoking on airplanes, in restaurants and government buildings. Non-smokers used to be a minority. Now they are a majority. That is because laws were enacted.

Some people have a need to dress in a certain way because of their religion. This is the same as having a need for a certain type of food. Yet, there are certain professions that require a person to wear a uniform. If the person from a special religious group chooses to follow a profession where a uniform is required then that person will have to conform to the rules of wearing that uniform.

There are laws and rules that govern everything. A person may be in a hurry and want to drive very fast and not stop for red lights. This is unlawful. But an ambulance has that right. The needs of a single person with an emergency medical condition abridge the rights of everyone else on the road at that time. Another condition where drivers must wait is for a funeral or a train. Sometimes waiting for a train can be a long process but everyone must wait.

When the convenience of an individual is considered then maybe the individual will have a greater right and maybe the society will have a greater right. This can be seen in the issue of abortion. Eventually, there will be laws that define the right of the mother, the father and the unborn child.

Sometimes the minority will have to give way to the majority and sometimes the majority will have to give way to the minority. It depends on the issue. The way to effect change is through requesting legislation from a legislator.

Answer 3

Freedom and anarchy are not the same. Anarchy means having no rules. But for freedom to work you need a MINIMAL set of rules. Actually, just one rule almost covers it all: the Golden rule.

The purest form of freedom is that in which people may do and live however they please, with only the following restrictions:
* They may not harm another.
* They may not harm or steal another's property, belongings, earnings, etc.
* They may not restrict another's freedoms to do and live as they please, subject to these same restrictions.
* They must always be prepared to take personal responsibility for their actions and their lives.

With just these four restrictions on freedom, you have no problems with one person's freedoms clashing with another's, because one's limits are maximized up to the point where the next person's begins, and all people are treated equally in that respect.

You also don't run into fights between the majority and minority. In a democracy, rule should not be by the minority, but a tyranny of the majority is at least as bad. By having a system of freedom where one person or group can not take or vote away the earnings or freedoms of others, all people become true sovereign individuals, rather than members of some majority or minority to be pitted against each other.

Freedom means equality, peace, and responsibility. It does not mean anarchy.

If you're interested, I blogged some time back a few articles on what an ideal model of democracy might look like, where freedom is maximized. You can check out those articles below.

Answer 4

Not necessarily.

Your questions are very central to the idea of democracy and have been debated everywhere there is a democracy. A 'free' socitey never meant the right to do anything you want, it means the right to do what you want as long as you don't interfere with the rights of others to do what they want.

'Freedom' in an interdependant human society is never absolute. (and all human societies are interdependant) In a democracy, there is a 'social contract'. Either conciously or unconciously we agree to give up some of our freedoms in order to live in a community. When there is conflict, and there always is, we abide by a set of laws that have been designed and agreed upon by the majority of the people.

Anarchy is the absence of such laws and would certainly not be more desireable (at least not to me, but I would agree to having a few less laws - we get carried away sometimes and make too many)

That doesn't mean that minorities have no rights. There are certain 'inalienable' basic rights that we agree that all people should have no matter what their opinions are and no matter if they are in the majority or not. These can not be 'voted' on.

Its a difficult balancing act, and its never perfect but its better than any of the alternatives that us humans have experienced so far. Absolute freedom is neither possible nor desireable but there are definitely some countries, some societies that would benefit from more freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom to choose a political leader.

Answer 5

A true free soceity would be anarchy. There would be people running around doing that ever they choose to do. The people with morals will try to do right and those with out will run around doing what ever that want.

So what is freedom. They say you are free if live in the U.S.A. but but why do people think this. The U.S.A has some of the most laws in the world. Example I own firearms but if someone is to break into my house and I kill them with my firearms I could go to prison for protecting my family. Then if a person breaks into my house and is hurt he could sue me for his injurys, so what is freedom I ask you.

Answer 6

The challenge will always remain balancing the rights of the individual with the healthy functioning of a society. The ideal is that the social mores should be compelling and involving to the individual, but still grant them autonomy and dignity.

Historically the societies that have thrived seem to have solved this by allowing the family unit to remain intact, and children encouraged to contribute first to family, then to community. When the idea of a common good becomes ingrained, the child grows into a healthy contributing member of society.

The anarchy seems to rise up in societies where people feel used. Their families and local communities are less compelling than the forces that take control of their lives as they become adults. Serfdom, industrial servitude, military states, tend to spawn rebellion, in direct proportion to the severity of the oppression.

People want to be free, but there is another deep seated need to be a part of something greater.

Yes, a free society is possible. It is not likely when there are forces present that wish to have absolute authority.

In the past there have been great social rebellions that have led to Democracy. It would appear that people have drifted into general lack of awareness about these things, but I believe human nature will bring a return of this awareness.

The 21st Century will shape up as a struggle against Global Corporate Fascism.

Answer 7

Freedom obviously cannot be understood as an absolute. I do not have the freedom to strike my fellow citizens, or to take their property. It does not follow that I am not free. A certain amount of rules are necessary for society to function. An anarchy would be a world without security, and also without structure. You can not be truly free if you do not have security.
I like to use a metaphor. Any house is made out of rooms that are limited by walls, and connected through doors. To get from one room to the others, we have to use the doors. But someone may object: 'I am not free in your house! I can only get from what room to the other by using the door, what if I want to go through where the wall is?'. You can see how silly the objection is. The walls make up the structure of the house, just as basic rules of conduct make up the structure of society.

Answer 8

Freedom is definitely not ana...rchy!!! . Freedom can happen only when our mind is free of all illusions like people controlling people and nature. If we only understand that the feeling of being exclusive is one of the reasons that true free society is not happening in our world. The feeling of exclusiveness is our selfishness. In our everyday life we keep saying that "I am important, I must get what I want and I don't care about the consequences." If we can see that we are all human beings, whatever we do we are affecting the rest of the world directly and indirectly then everybody is respecting one another and this the free society. No one or any group is important everybody is important, no one is dispensable. Only our limited mind create the divisions because of ignorance about the fact or reality that we are all one. The only way is to see and realized that we are selfish and be observant how this selfishness operate in us and totally stop it. We must have this interest to change ourselves and not waiting to anybody to do it for us.

Answer 9

everything in this world tries to reach a state of balance. if there is something that you want to do, then in order to be able to do it, you have to be willing to NOT do something else i.e Freedom has to be balanced with responsibility.
You are free to act the way you deem fit, but at the same time you have to take responsibility for your actions and agree to bear the consequences. you are free to steal something but you must also be ready for subsequent punishment as that is the ultimate consequence of your action. But this example is an extreme case. Even in day to day life, you have the freedom to choose and make your own decisions; but if you decision turns out to be wrong, you should have the courage to take responsibility for it and not pass on the blame.
Also, your actions must be rational. they must always have a valid reason or a final purpose. and if every individual acts rationally, then there is no scope for anarchy or any kind of clashes.

Answer 10

No freedom is not anarchy nor the other way around. Having freedom demands certain responsibilities as having it is not a right but a privilege. Anarchy presumes that there are no responsibilities and that everything is a right. God help us if we ever find ourselves looking at such an entitlement society.

Answer 11

Freedom never means anarchy. The rights of minorities and majorities should always be protected. I doubt there will ever be a totally free society in my lifetime, but then we as humans can always dream of utopia.