is freedom harmful?

Question

s this possible?
it occurred to me that freedom could be quite dangerous:
- freedom allows any belief
- beliefs are perceptions of truth
- truth cannot be universally accepted
- conflicting truths result in conflict
- freedom allows conflict
- war results from conflict
i am not a nihilist, but suddenly its occurred to me that freedom may be more of a societal burden than a benefit.

1. is freedom dangerous?
2. does freedom jeopardize social construct?
3. does freedom serve as a barrier to productivity?
4. does freedom increase anxiety/fear?

Answer 1

People conflict with each other every day. It's a fundamental nature brought forth by the fact that people are individuals and make their own decisions regardless of the feelings of others. You're saying that freedom encourages conflict but is there any social ordering that doesn't? People will conflict no matter what you do, but will conflict much less if they have less to conflict with. The reason people formed the governments present in most of the free world was so that they could have a society which is as close as possible to anarchy, allowing everyone to have as much freedom as possible, while at the same time ensuring the safety of the society's members. The only way you could possibly stop people from having conflicts and wars and revolts entirely is to destroy their individuality, and then what do you have? You've destroyed what makes them human and they're nothing more than a biological computer that's incapable of disobeying.

in short, your main error is in your first statement
"-freedom allows any belief"
it should read
"-free will allows any belief"

my answers:
1. People always have some degree of freedom. If you base a society around the restriction of freedoms you encourage conflicts and dissatisfaction. If you base a society around personal freedoms with only the minimum restrictions neccesary to maintain order and safety, you will still have conflicts, however, you are less likely to have them than in the restricitive society. And again, you're mistaking freedom for free will. People are always dangerous if motivated enough. The question is how can you arrange a society so that as few members as possible will be motivated to overthrow the society.
2. All past societies have at some point been overthrown or abandoned and replaced by new ones. The idea that you can have a society that can last indefinately is an illusion.
3. Freedom serves as an incentive to productivity. It focuses the thoughts which in other societies would have caused revolts toward productive uses. For example, since you are free to spend your money any way you choose, you work very hard to get that money. If you were in a society where the ways in which you could spend your money were severely limited, you would spend time thinking of ways to stop that system, and would be less focused on your work.
4. Again, conflict is a part of human nature, and anxiety/fear are the result of conflict. I'm not saying it's good, but there is no way to stop conflict without violating what makes you human.

If you wanna know more about this idea, I recomend you watch the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion. This argument is one of the main themes.

Answer 2

What do you propose, institution of an Orwellian society? Limited freedoms? I'd prefer my freedom and the possibility of conflict, thank you very much. Even totalitarian societies are conflict-prone, if we must have conflict, let it be under the banner of freedom, please.

Answer 3

Winston Churchill said something like, "Democracy is the worst form of government until you consider the alternatives."

Sure, freedom is dangerous. But the alternatives are pretty reprehensible.

Answer 4

All thrue time we have fought for it. the only way we have this is for the brave men and women who service our country,and to prouct the things we take for granet.

Answer 5

freedom is only harmfull to the opressors

Answer 6

yes it is thats why i live in china