Pensée 44

Freedom versus Order

In the worlds of political and social sciences, there exists the Individual Freedoms versus Social Order debate. It is generally most heated when legislation is passed that affects the personal freedoms of the individual. Most recently this confrontation has been brought to attention by the Shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

Freedom of the Individual is exactly that, how much can any one person do legally. The furthest extreme of "Freedom" is not Utopia as some might imagine, but instead utter anarchy. Anarchy is to be understood as lawlessness in this context. It only can be lawlessness. Without any laws or morals (which serve as laws for most religions) men are left to their own wills and desires. English author and political scientist Thomas Hobbes defines this clearly as "Bellum omnium contra omnes" or war of all against all. This is what lawlessness must inevitably come to because the wills and desires of individuals will clash with each other and there will be no effective or reasonable way to resolve any conflicts that arise aside from violence.

Social Order on the other hand is not only legislation in and of itself but how legislation is enforced. The furthest extreme of Order is complete Totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is to be understood as political system in which the "Establishment" or state knows no limits to its authority and power, and attempts to regulate and control all aspects of public and private life. Complete Totalitarianism would also attempt to control all thought. It is as far as I know impossible to entirely regulate and control original thought. There are of course various modes and forms of brainwashing, torture and "persuasion". Indeed many people prefer to have others think for them and tell them what to do. However there is always the capability to think for oneself, one need only do so.  The logical furthest extreme of Order is any functional form of totalitarianism, an example of which is best found in V for Vendetta (Graphic novel [1982-1989] Film {2006}). Totalitarianism is also indubitably dystopian.

Having seen that neither alone are any good, one is left to wonder how to balance these two opposing forces optimally. Having lived in Europe, specifically in Switzerland, a country where an emphasis on Social Order is part of society, I tend to lean towards a balance favoring Order but enough Freedom that Order is not overbearing. Europe as a whole however, is subject to different influences than the United States or the rest of the world. In Europe at any given time if one nation were to let its guard down one of your many neighbors would attempt to invade or begin some sort of military action. A few examples of Social Order in Switzerland include: 1) Mandatory militia army service for all male citizens.[All male citizens are conscripted when they reach majority and are found to be:"satisfying physically, intellectually and mentally requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing these services without harming oneself or others" Military service is then after 18-21 weeks of Basic Training, 3 weeks every year until age 30, provided one does not pursue a higher rank.{Soldiers are required to take their weapons home with them during their service}] 2) Registration of denizens of any village.[At birth one is registered at the local town hall. If one wants to move to a different city or village, one must first unregister from ones own town, and apply to live in the next town, wherein the next town votes on whether or not the citizens of the town will allow you to move there. Then once granted such permission one is registered as living in the new town. 3) Strict border control.[The Swiss borders are strictly controlled, and even if one is smuggled into the country it is exceedingly difficult to get a job, rent an apartment or otherwise live without the proper documentation.] Certain aspects of Social Order though, are often difficult to enforce in Large countries without resorting to Authoritarianism or worse.

Freedom then is the other part of the balance. The United States of America has since the middle of the 19th Century never dealt with an international threat in its own territory and thus is the mindset towards Freedom and Order very different. There are also a number of social, cultural and other historical factors that play into this. As an American however, I am very much in favor of the Bill of Rights which ensure certain basic freedoms to the citizens. Specifically:
-The Right to Religious Freedom (to worship however and whoever you choose without government persecution),
-The Freedom of Speech (the Government cannot arrest you because of what you say, no matter how critical or against the current government it might be, though this freedom is not absolute as Obscenity, Defamation, Incitement, Incitement to Riot, and Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct are considered offenses)
-The Freedom of the Press (insures that the Government does not censor the Media or interfere otherwise)
-The Freedom of Assembly (People may congregate in public without Government interference or private so long as other laws aren't being broken in the process)
-The Right to Petition (to make complaint to or seek the assistance of the Government without fear of punishment)
-The Right to keep and bear Arms (every citizen has the right to a firearm for self defense. This amendment has been highly debated and further specifically defined and interpreted, however for the purpose of this Pensée I mean to utilize its intent and not specific definition.)
-The following rights and freedoms have to specifically do with one's first contact with Law enforcement to one's last interaction with them [From arrest to conviction by trial and sentencing] {Amendments IV through VIII}
They include protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, self-incrimination, rights of the accused, right to counsel, right to a public trial, right to trial by jury, right to speedy trial, prohibitions of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Further is the protection of rights not specifically laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America as well as protection of the powers of the individual States and People from the Federal Government.

I find it difficult to decide where to draw the line. How much of one over the other. These two are after all diametrically opposed, and yet both are necessary.

Pensée 43

It is not only necessary to clearly define each term precisely, but understand, be aware and wary of the varying cultural contexts of terms. For example, the term "hate" in the English language is used to convey mild to strong dislike for something, someone or a situation. The same word in German is "Hass" and literally expresses the emotion of hate, the pure, raw, unfiltered, unadulterated feeling of hate. "Hate- to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward."

Pensée 42

I find it invaluable to lay down specific and finite definitions for the terms used in any discussion or explanation. There are within the English language alone a plethora of definitions for any single one term. To state exactly what one means to say, to convey the precise meaning of a thought represented by a word, avoids all manner of confusion and misunderstanding and makes for ease of conversation and use.