Personal Freedom Vs. Social Order
Be it resolved that Social Order is better than having Personal Freedom
Social order is better
Side Score: 14
|
Personal Freedom is better
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
Every time there has been a question that makes liberty a doubt in one's premises... Social order is questioned. One's own freedom is essential until you do not interfere someone else's freedom. You have a choice at your own liberty but to choose from those choices has to be righteous which does not bear any interference with else's which may cause a chaos or more. Side: Social order is better
This is a false dichotomy. You don't have to sacrifice one to have a respectable amount of the other. It takes balance, and a willingness to adapt to changing situations. Social order has less currency if you don't have freedom to enjoy it, freedom has less currency without the advantages that an ordered society brings. Side: Both
1
point
1
point
Social Order is defined as a set of linked structures, institutions, and practices which conserve, maintain, and enforce "normal" ways of relating and behaving. Personal Freedom is defined as the right to civil liberties, such as those described in the Bill of Rights. Social order is the foundation of personal freedoms in the United States of America. Th e Constitution of the United States, which is the foundation of our country houses the Bill of Rights, which is the basis of our personal freedoms. Back before either blacks or women, or even non-land-owning men had personal freedoms they still had social order. This social order gave way to personal freedoms in such that those that could vote slowly gave way and voted (using the social structure put in place) to allow first blacks, then women to have personal freedoms. But social order came first. Side: Social order is better
1
point
|
2
points
"There are all kinds of anarchism, such as anarcho-pacifism and Christian anarchism, to whom violence is unacceptable. Max Stirner stood for Egoist Anarchism – the belief that evoluntary cooperation and avoiding chaos was in the self-interest of every human being ... " Side: Personal Freedom is better
2
points
Personal freedom allows free men to pursue self rational interests whereas social order oppresses collective men to pursue collective interests, and when man's voluntary actions are not taken by one's self, force is used to achieve others means. Side: Personal Freedom is better
Anarchy Is Not Chaos A society without government - harmony not by submission but by free agreements. Side: Personal Freedom is better
1
point
Ravi Zacharias said this at Kansas State University; freedom with out boundaries is anarchy. Basically we need freedom but with that freedom must come a boundary that we know not to cross. It is possible to live in personal freedom but we must know what our boundaries are. Another wise man, Andrew Wilkow, said; your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. Side: Personal Freedom is better
Both are crucial to a good, functioning system but in my mind personal freedom is a tad bit better. However, there are limits. You may have the freedom to discharge a gun in public whenever you feel like it but I also should also have the freedom to not get struck by your bullet. My freedom trumps yours. In other words, as long as your personal freedoms don't go affecting anyone else it's good and that's where social order comes into play. It keeps personal freedoms from lashing out and affecting everyone else. Side: Both
0
points
|