Do you prefer order or freedom?

[Adachi 772]

On one hand, in a perfectly orderly world, there are no crimes, and everyone is provided for. But there are strict rules, and many rights that we take for granted might not be allowed.

 

On the other hand, in a perfectly free world, we would have full liberty, but the strong could control the weak, since there are no laws.

 

I think I would have to go with freedom, because there is nothing stopping the weaker people, and also some of the stronger people, from banding together to protect those who are weaker. No group will have a chance to get too powerful, because once they start harming others, the rest of the people will be free to stop them without limitations. And considering that many people of authority break the law anyway to get what they want, I don't think an orderly world would make things too much better. I mean, there would be a lot less crime, but there would still be corruption everywhere.

[Shanks 10,816]

I am going with freedom but with that said freedom dosen't mean the "freedom" to harm or violate the rights of other because that interferes with their right to not have force or coercion initiated against them. True freedom is the non aggression principle which is simply that nobody has the right to initiate force against anyone unless it is in self defense and the only things that should be restricted or outlawed are things that directly threaten the rights of others like theft, murder, fraud ect at least on the federal level with state and local governments able to do some other things within limits as per the 9th and 10th amendments.

[Scootalove 10,689]

I would go with freedom, because a perfect world with order would not be perfect at all since corruption would still be existent in a world with order. A world with freedom would allow liberty, but it still wouldn't make a difference.

[Frostgage 7,975]

I'll say freedom, but let me make it clear that that does not mean a world without rules.

[ReverseFaller 2,483]

Order, or freedom? So basically Democracy, or Anarchy.

 

ANARCHY!! ALL HAIL THE HELIX FOSSIL!!

 

 

My actual opinion is that Freedom is better. However, this doesn't meant that everything should be like it is in the movie "The Purge" where you can do whatever you want. 

Edited May 4, 2014 by Mikami

[Starlight Sky 374]

When they're both made exclusive, I'll always go with freedom.

 

Absolute order prevents any possible growth; it's certain stagnation. Absolute freedom is essentially chaos; different interests can clash without restraint.

 

Only the latter has potential to become something worthwhile though. People are free to choose/create an amicable order. There may be untold horrors along the way, but life could actually start.

[Tholos 145]

Freedom. There's just no competition.

[Jamaican Jam 112]

I'd go with freedom! I'd rather deal with both the positives and negatives that comes with freedom rather than order as I like to do whatever I want when I want to!

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

So basically I have to choose between absolute fascism or absolute anarchy?

 

I pick "C"- shoot myself in the head.

 

Neither "freedom" nor "order" are inherently good.

[Dddrgn 450]

I prefer sacrificing some freedom for order over having complete freedom.

[Discordian 6,015]

One cannot exist without the other. The freedom to create order and the order to define your freedoms. I choose both but will always side with freedom (AKA chaos) since if necessary it can be orderly while true order discourages freedom almost entirely.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Discordian

[man dude man 555]

I think, that the idea of order instates a form of freedom for a select group of people that determine the fortune and wellness of our governing bodies. Freedom, doesn't necessarily mean chaos, anarachy, embracing absolute freedoms, with no reprecussions. I think a world where we can have an independent existence, work under the table our entire lives, build a cabin in the fucking woods and not have to worry about being on state land, being able to grow fruits and crops or raise livestosck without Monsanto trying to grab our balls. I think that world should exist however.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

Alright, I decided to be contrarian and vote "order" since pretty much everyone here seems to have spent too much time watching Mel Gibson movies.

 

 

 

[man dude man 555]

Order, or freedom? So basically Democracy, or Anarchy.

 

ANARCHY!! ALL HAIL THE HELIX FOSSIL!!

 

 

My actual opinion is that Freedom is better. However, this doesn't meant that everything should be like it is in the movie "The Purge" where you can do whatever you want. 

I liked this because it was a picture of Pidgeott pertaining to Anarchy.

[GhostPony750 959]

Both does not exist. As you can see already, freedom is inexistant, there will always be people who feel like putting laws everywhere for everything and control everyone. And for order, if there is too many laws, the individualists and some people will revolt. Or like 1984, the government will destroy anyone who think by himself.

 

There is two kind of people:

-who live by the rules.

-who live by the morals.

 

You can easily connect the information I guess. The one who live by the rules prefer order and vice-versa. So I prefer a balance here. This way, no one will be satisfied; isn't that equity?

[lomk 20,663]

I can't go with either. I prefer balance. 

[Sigma 768]

I have plans on moving to Japan when I'm able, so I guess choosing freedom would be hypocritical. Besides, people use the best of things in the dumbest of ways:

 

Internet? Memes!

 

Video? VINEs!

 

Social Networking? Have all of your private information get sold without your consent! P S, you don't get a dime.

 

Freedom is no exception. In the United States, we have the right to form our own opinions and act on them, yet a lot of people seem to prefer the herd mentality that is a 'political party' over free thinking. This reminds me of how crackpots like Adolf Hitler rose to power. People like him would give loud speeches full of emotion that would rile up a crowd and cause them to cheer. The crowd's enthusiasm would affect the individual to where the individual would ditch all thought and cheer as well, and a domino effect occurs. Before you know it, that individual who gave up his individualism to be a part of the masses is signing his name on a contract so he can give his life to a cause he knows nothing about.

 

Yea, that may be an extreme senario, but the rule still applies. If you're not going to use your freedom, then I don't see any reason why you should choose it over order.

[Celtore 2,770]

I'm going with order. While absolute authority can stunt growth in new technology and/or creativity, absolute freedom would cause a massive gridlock in everything. There would be no government of course, thus all government services would be closed including healthcare, all crown organizations and of course the mint. And the dominos continue falling until one realizes that paper money is worthless in such a society and we revert back to bartering as the one accepted form of trade. Everyone suddenly becomes dirt poor and chaos ensues.

 

Of course a land of complete order would be fairly bleak too, perhaps resembling the particular fictional dystopia of airstrip one out of 1984 where you must swear your allegience to the great and mighty dictator and have your life watched for any signs of traitorous intent. But I feel like I'd rather live there than in a land of perfect freedom... Actually, that might make for an interesting story.

 

In terms of just RATIONAL order vs freedom, I'm still sitting with order. I just like structure and rules, it helps me make sense of things easier, know what's not acceptable and often times the rules were made to make things better for everyone (such as limiting talking in libraries.)

Edited May 4, 2014 by Celtore

[Messershmitt 289]

Freedom... I couldn't resist it. 

 

[Taviscratch 453]

Although I'd like to say freedom, I think truthfully I have to go with order. However, it isn't a binary choice since the extreme of either is a terrible thing. We all need a bit of both order and freedom.

[Adachi 772]

I am going with freedom but with that said freedom dosen't mean the "freedom" to harm or violate the rights of other because that interferes with their right to not have force or coercion initiated against them. True freedom is the non aggression principle which is simply that nobody has the right to initiate force against anyone unless it is in self defense and the only things that should be restricted or outlawed are things that directly threaten the rights of others like theft, murder, fraud ect at least on the federal level with state and local governments able to do some other things within limits as per the 9th and 10th amendments.

I was going with the Shin Megami Tensei definition of freedom. Basically, I probably should've titled my thread "Order vs Chaos".

[Dattebayo 2,850]

Order.

 

I would much rather live in a safe society that you dint have to worry about getting stabbed in the street but have to sacrifice a few rights than a lawless free-for-all struggle to exist (read the OP, it's completely lawless with no authority).

That's essentially what complete freedom entails, and its a bit foolish to believe that the human race as a whole can survive without some sort of governing body telling them what is right and what is wrong. Besides, TRUE anarchy will never last Long, there will always be someone craving power that can turn it into a dictatorship in a blink of an eye.

[Lucky Bolt 35,064]

There needs to be an even balance of both in my opinion....but if I had to choose between one or the other it would be freedom. 

[Rebel the Wolfgirl 5,605]

Freedom, of course. But there needs to be a balance. If you have an "orderly" society, there would be no rights. In a truly "free" (i.e. anarchist) society, you would have freedom to do anything, and that's not always a good thing. Order and freedom have to work in tandem. You need order so you can provide freedom.

[Here No Longer 5,276]

I have always quite strongly been on the side of freedom. As a left-wing libertarian, I strongly believe in equal and expansive freedoms for all that do not oppress those who aren't oppressive themselves. As a US citizen, I believe in all of our freedoms afforded to us by the Bill of Rights, I don't just cherry pick a couple and go on the warpath when somebody says something they don't like about them *cough cough* today's conservatives *cough cough*. Sure, order is still necessary, we don't need to let people do things like rob and steal and kill and all of that, but I believe that freedom should come first.

A great example of this is my STRONG opposition to the Patriot Act. It quite blatantly violates our Fourth Amendment rights, all for what? "Protection from 'terrorism'?" I'd say don't make me laugh, but you already have Bush Jr. It's doing nothing but invading people's privacy. Honestly, defending stuff like this is dangerous because where do you honestly draw the line? Certainly not on the first, second, as mentioned fourth, the fifth, sixth, and ninth. Oh wait, THAT'S MORE THAN HALF OF OUR "Bill of Rights"! It's a great document, RESPECT IT PLEASE.

Now that I'm off of that spiel, you can tell freedom is VERY important to me, and it is. If people can't be free, then we lose so much as a society.

Edited July 6, 2019 by ~Angel Dust~