3 years ago#31
Many of you are confusing "freedom" with "total control". Total control doesn't necessarily mean that you're a program who can't think for yourself. If we look at novels like Brave New World and 1984, that's the sort of perspective you should take on this topic. In Brave New World, they were controlled completely, but it was to the point where they still had necessary freedoms [e.g. engaging in sexual activity whenever they wanted to].
Truly, I don't know what the right answer is. I would like to say "total control" because it makes more sense, but I wouldn't want to stop fighting for "freedom". Freedom is extremely subjective and we can tear that word apart if we chose to. Many Americans say that they are "free", but things like gay marriage are only allowed in certain states. As they try to rationalize that, it will always come back to, "But are you truly free to do as you want?"
I haven't read past page one, but I hope this topic gets to 500 - a sensible 500 topic that is. I'd love to see a civilized debate on the meaning of both words without any ad hominem crap being flung at each other.
"I've got so much love to give."
Currently playing: Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, NFS: The Run, and Initial D: Extreme Stage
3 years ago#32
Control to the extent of laws used to make sure no one person encroaches upon the freedom of others. This was the original intent in the creation of our country. Then people decided that the government needed to "protect" them more, so they decided to increase control in exchange for freedom.
Nothing will ever result in true peace. One or the other leads to an undesirable extreme , and a mix between the two will eventually be corrupted anyway.
If you believe in Princess Celestia as your personal Lord and Savior and are 100% proud of it, put this in your signature.
3 years ago#33
Since the balanced option is out of the picture, I would go for Freedom by far.
Freedom is not anarchy. Just because people are "free" does not make them into savage animals. Likewise, most human beings live decent lives without constantly being submitted to control. Do you think, if the police was to vanish, you would get out tomorrow and kill your neighbour just for fun ? Probably not, because you have developped morality and/or beliefs in something that judges if your actions are "good" or "bad".
I read in a book a sentence that comes into mind : "The law exists not for the just, but for the unjust, for the just carry the law in their heart.". Control was born out of necessity, in a time where humans were still akin to animals ,hence we needed to enforce, to uphold and maintain a standard in which society could function without being contantly under pressure by the "unjust".
As for wars and control... I'd say it's the exact opposite. Wars are rarely started by the people, but by the people in "control". Nobody in their right mind would wake up and say "I'm bored today, who don't I risk my live invading another country"... Wars are always about superpowers seeking control, asides from revolutions, which are the people fighting against control... So Freedom does not equate War.
Does Freedom equates crime ? Well, if no law can enforce sanctions, this would make people responsible of their actions with their very own lives lives, their morality, their own conscience... I'm not even sure there would be much more crime, as nowadays, people do criminal things mostly to oppose the rigid control system in place. And a form of law would eventually be established by individuals and communities anyway.
And likewise, does Freedom ignore Law ? I think a form of law can exist without control... Sure it would need enforcers, which could be a form of control... But it would be much different than what we have now, which is huge control superpowers destroying the planet and deciding for the people what we want while pretending to give us some degreee of freedom by allowing us to choose between a couple crooked politians to control us every 4 years... Control helped us to conform, to become productive member of society... But now that most of the world is "civilised", control is not as important as it once was...
The wind carried screams from the west. I could not help but smile - Kain PSN/MGO ID : Stealth_Cobra | MGO Character : Stealth_Viper
3 years ago#34
The best would be a benevolent monarchy or dictator. One leader that truly acts for the best interests of his people.
To die without leaving a trace, that is the legacy of the Garo
3 years ago#35
Both - You need lawbringers to protect weak civilians, and you need the freedom of speech and to have privacy in one's own home. It's a tricky balance.
Like Dragonball Z? Check out my blog!
3 years ago#36
The problem is....in a totally free no rules society there ARE people who would go out and kill people just for fun. Not to mention there are people that would try to control other people via power or fear.
To die without leaving a trace, that is the legacy of the Garo
3 years ago#37
The third poll choice is unfair.
a knock, a thud, a tiny...zwoosh, where?
Please, call me Aneed [http://i.imgur.com/DDzaw.jpg]
3 years ago#38
I don't think the third option is a copout, because all three are valid options. None of them work though. Pure control would work, but it would be an artificial peace and would rob humanity of its humanity (Equilibrium anyone?). Pure freedom would not work because or all the yahoos out there. A balance of the two because of all the yahoos out there again, because those yahoos will get into power at some point.
Peace can be attained by removing the human race, though. That's a little dark for me, though, so let's not shoot for that one either.
R.I.P. Junk Bludgeo'd For Hammer, But Always In Our Hearts. 176 Damage, Nevar Forget.
3 years ago#39
Peace has little to do with control or freedom and more to do with our ability to inflict harm on each other. At best peace can only be obtained when humans can no longer be killed. True immortality/invulnerability for humans would make violence pointless. Hence.. peace ensues in some form. That creates a whole new set of problems that we would have to argue about.. which isn't entirely 'peaceful' but we wouldn't be killing each other over it.
Thats as close to peace as you get.
3 years ago#40
Peace was never an option. There will never be peace in this world and if someone promises peace they are liars.
http://youtu.be/tNW3ItQOd7c <--- watch and likey hahaha