At what point should choice be taken away?

[Doctor Amadeus]

To give this question some context, one of my favorite clips kind of dealing with the subjects. I remembered watching this and not liking Janeway but seeing both sides of the argument.


I am an authoritarian though, this is true, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in freedom too, I just view that freedom can sometimes be mistaken for chaos, and that up and unto a certain point some freedom is no freedom at all.


But what do you think are there some points freedoms should be taken away?


Follow up if so under what circumstances?

[cubby]

To give this question some context, one of my favorite clips kind of dealing with the subjects. I remembered watching this and not liking Janeway but seeing both sides of the argument.


I am an authoritarian though, this is true, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in freedom too, I just view that freedom can sometimes be mistaken for chaos, and that up and unto a certain point some freedom is no freedom at all.


But what do you think are there some points freedoms should be taken away?


Follow up if so under what circumstances?

The easiest (and therefore most complicated) is: my freedoms end where yours begin.

Boiled down: don't do something that you wouldn't want someone else doing to you.

However, after the boilerplate philosophical answers, the answer is only complicated, depends entirely on both the specific freedom and the circumstances, and will never have a straight answer.

Interesting point, however, and the scene is a good one.

[Deleted]

Every empire falls, every universe ceases. It never mattered. And that hits all your polls.

[PACOX]

When acts become unquestionably irrational.

[Draco-Onis]

The question should be what use is freedom to a society that would use it to destroy itself?

[Doctor Amadeus]

The easiest (and therefore most complicated) is: my freedoms end where yours begin.

Boiled down: don't do something that you wouldn't want someone else doing to you.

However, after the boilerplate philosophical answers, the answer is only complicated, depends entirely on both the specific freedom and the circumstances, and will never have a straight answer.

Interesting point, however, and the scene is a good one.

Thanks Cubby, I think as we go forward locally or globally this is going to be in increasingly important question contemplate.


I think when it has become clear that 1 of 2 things happens that would require that a choice be taken away or both.


1. An individual is no longer able to make objective decisions or choices and is a threat or danger to others around them.

2. And individual is no longer able to make objective or rational choices and is a threat to themselves.


I don't mean to suggest people shouldn't be allowed to be stupid, in fact I don't think there is anyway to really stop that, but I think there is a significant difference between someone doing something stupid and not falling into either the 1st or 2nd conditions I mentioned.


Here goes the same choice 7 of 9 has only the other way around



- - - Updated - - -

The question should be what use is freedom to a society that would use it to destroy itself?

That is a good question, some say that is just nature the leaf on the tree of evolution. Everything in nature seems to have a season.

[PC2]

Violence.

The question should be what use is freedom to a society that would use it to destroy itself?

Is this something about Trump causing WWIII? Society is not destroying itself.

[Draco-Onis]

Is this something about Trump causing WWIII? Society is not destroying itself.

What does this philosophical question have to do with Trump? do you think Trump is going to cause WWIII or something? you do know this thread started with a Star Trek vid right?

[Queen of Hamsters]

With great freedom of choice, comes great responsibility.

And I think mankind will have to retract some freedoms as our planet becomes more and more overpopulated.

[PC2]

What does this philosophical question have to do with Trump? do you think Trump is going to cause WWIII or something? you do know this thread started with a Star Trek vid right?

Oh, you were asking a philosophical question. I would say freedom is necessary because no person or group has all the right answers and that society is at risk of external problems regardless of whether it values freedom or authoritarianism. Society progressed because of innovation, much of which came from ideas that were insulting or even heretical to societal beliefs(Ex heliocentrism, Darwin's theories). A society with no freedom/choice has no space to re-invent itself.

[Deleted]

Who was the author of star trek again and what books did he read?

[whywhatwhowhenhow]

Who was the author of star trek again and what books did he read?

Gene Roddenberry

[Ghostpanther]

Easy decision. Criminals, while they do still have some basic human rights, do not get many choices while in prison, other than if they will eat their food or not.

Another example is if your property is being bought from you under Imminent Domain, you usually do not have a choice to sell it or not. This for the good of all citizens is why they can get away with it.

However, I do know of one case in Northern Ohio, where the Electric companies were wanting to force some Amish to give them the right a way of placing power transmitter towers across their farm land using Imminent domain laws. The Amish won their case in court and the Electric companies had to find another route.

[Draco-Onis]

Oh, you were asking a philosophical question. I would say freedom is necessary because no person or group has all the right answers and that society is at risk of external problems regardless of whether it values freedom or authoritarianism. Society progressed because of innovation, much of which came from ideas that were insulting or even heretical to societal beliefs(Ex heliocentrism, Darwin's theories). A society with no freedom/choice has no space to re-invent itself.

There is a fine line though and events like 9/11 have shown that people are more than willing to trade freedoms for a sense of security. So would people give up freedoms if it meant no wars or starvation? I think most people would not care if they were given a big enough incentive and society's advance may not change as much as you think.

[Realitytrembles]

Simple.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins.

[Theodarzna]

The question should be what use is freedom to a society that would use it to destroy itself?

In cosmic terms, it doesn't matter. Statistically, you were never going to amount to anything, unlikely is life on this planet. But there is the problem of individual lives. I did not ask to exist, but I am here, I have a life and it is my own. A more pertinent question is ultimately, how much of my one life do I have a say over? Honestly very little but it helps to have some say on something.

[Kapadons]

The ONLY time you shouldn't have freedom of choice is if those choices DIRECTLY harm another person. Past that, you should be allowed to make your own decisions. Even if they harm yourself (smoking, drinking, and eating like shit). If you wanna eat fried mayonnaise balls while bathing in corn liquor and smoking a pack of cigarettes a minute, that is your God given right as a human being. Anyone that argues against this is an authoritarian and should be mocked and shunned.

[PC2]

There is a fine line though and events like 9/11 have shown that people are more than willing to trade freedoms for a sense of security. So would people give up freedoms if it meant no wars or starvation? I think most people would not care if they were given a big enough incentive and society's advance may not change as much as you think.

Giving people an incentive to give up more and more freedom doesn't mean that such a system would work very well in the long run. I don't see this as a debate about convincing people, I see it about which concept has the merit to lead to more good ideas. A country like China tells us that an authoritarian system can improve but exactly how much of it is due to sheer labor productivity is not known. And whether it can scale to Western per capita metrics is very iffy.

In cosmic terms, it doesn't matter.

Because heat death? There is a massive amount of uncertainty with how the cosmos work, it seems like a big assumption that our model of the far future is complete.

[Deleted]

Gene Roddenberry

And he did read whose books?

[Calfredd]

And he did read whose books?

Instead of beating around the bush and dragging things out, just say want you want to say.