Why is freedom better than authoritarianism?

Watch this thread
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
Why is the freedom to drink yourself silly better than the state restricting how much alcohol you can consume and thereby protecting your health and welfare? The former comes under freedom; whereas, the latter is authoritarian; however, the latter provides greater benefits to the individual and society as a whole.

Just one example.

My personal opinion is that freedom is better, but that's just because I like it - wholly subjective.

Your thoughts?
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
Well if that's the case then having unprotected sex should be banned, or eating too much. It is bad for your health and increases your chance of getting an STD. Do you support the government controlling that?

It all goes back to The Common Law and property rights. So you are your own property, what you do is your resonsibility as long as you don't curtail the property rights of others. If people can drink as they please or eat, they should be allowed to smoke and do drugs as they please. It is as simple as that. The government should not have laws, regulations, taxes or tarrifs curtailing peoples perperty rights. Any attempt by government to do so, is illegal under The Common Law and should be struck down in the courts, protested by the Church and not signed by the Monarchy. If needs be it calls for armed civil war to stop the governments force being used to destroy property rights.

What is meant by freedom? It doesn't mean you are freedom from laws, it means freedom from government force in the taking of your property rights you have as a human being from conception. Yeah that's right abortion is illegal, unless the rights of the mother have been curtailed, as in rape or life of said mother. I am a post modern Conservative, so I believe in freedom from government, enforced by Common law, which leads to the greatest amount of choice and equality of opportunity. However I don't support democracy, but the protection of property rights, so I think only land and property owners and their marriage partners should be able to vote. I think government taxation is illegal and that government charters should be used to voluntarily raise money from people. I am a member of the Church of England and think it should be a seperate part of the state from the government, so I believe in seperation of church of government, not church and state. I think the monarchy's roll should be defeader of the Protestant faith, hold of British traditions and head of the armed forces. The courts role should be enforcing Common Law to limit the power of the Commons and to judge disputes between people. Parliaments role should be as limited as possible. So far I have only came up with 3 things parliament should set out charters for, Defence, Foreign affaires and Prisons.

I hope this goes some way to answering your question. Freedom means, freedom from government.
2
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
The state has no interest in protecting anyone's health especially if the state has a conflict of interest...like it has now with big business. The state should, in the interests of the whole economy, only regulate big industry and direct central planning to esnure that citizens have the best life that can be given. The latter would involve the free and easy accessibility of information so that people can make choices based upon their own decisions. When the state dictates that is authoritarianism, whether it is beneficial or not. The state restricting how much alcohol the public can drink is authoritarian because it is limiting your freedom to drink how you like. When the state restricts things it does not do it for the sake of your health, it does it so that, for example, drunkards do not violate the law. The state cares nothing about your health unless it conflicts with their interest in preserving public safety and ensuring that laws are adhered to. Of course, the state must provide health care to citizens, but it doesn't legislate against alcohol consumption for the sake of your health; it does it to mitigate the effects of drunkeness (i.e., transgression of laws, public violence and domestic abuse).
0
reply
Eboracum
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 8 years ago
#4
Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.

Freedom is ALWAYS better.

I'd decriminalise drugs, roll back the frontiers of the welfare state, legalise euthanasia.

The more freedom the better. As long as it doesn't encroach on anyone else's freedom.
2
reply
Boromir
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
You are assuming the state is good at what it does. It largely isn't. If you want security and no freedom you can go to jail, don't subject me to yet more oppressive left wing bull****.

People didn't flood through the Berlin Wall to get to East Germany. People were fleeing that communist toilet.
2
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 8 years ago
#6
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Why is the freedom to drink yourself silly better than the state restricting how much alcohol you can consume and thereby protecting your health and welfare? The former comes under freedom; whereas, the latter is authoritarian; however, the latter provides greater benefits to the individual and society as a whole.

Just one example.

My personal opinion is that freedom is better, but that's just because I like it - wholly subjective.

Your thoughts?
In a free society, only the stupid are subject to their own stupidity. In an authoritarian society, everyone is subject to their stupidity.
1
reply
TheLurveDoctor
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
because it assumes that somebody else knows better than you and has the authority to decide things for you
it's condescending and treats you like a child
it's also fallacious: a body of people to decide things like alcohol bans are human adults just like me, so it's silly that they can legislate this far when apparently they, as the same demographic as me, are not responsible to make choices relating to alcohol! if they can ban it, then that assumes that this same group that I am a member of (an adult human being of sound mind) is responsible to decide matters of risk and danger.
besides, if I'm responsible enough to vote for politicians, why am I not responsible to vote on which lifestlye choices I make? if I have the authority technically to vote for a dictatorship political party, and so does every other individual of my age, so why don't I have the authority to consume a danger-to-myself product that isn't dangerous to those around me in a strictly direct sense? voting for a dictatorship isn't simply a danger to myself, it's a danger to everybody around me as well, which isn't a danger of alcohol or drugs etc
1
reply
TheHistoryStudent
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 8 years ago
#8
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Why is the freedom to drink yourself silly better than the state restricting how much alcohol you can consume and thereby protecting your health and welfare? The former comes under freedom; whereas, the latter is authoritarian; however, the latter provides greater benefits to the individual and society as a whole.

Just one example.

My personal opinion is that freedom is better, but that's just because I like it - wholly subjective.

Your thoughts?
I personally don't think it's possible to empirically prove if/why a particular way of doing things is better than another, I think a lot of it comes down to culture, economics, politics and whatnot, which makes a particular political system slightly better suited to one area than it might be in another. As an example, take communism - it might, given it's ideas, work better in a country with a lot of working class people and a collectivist culture, contrasted say with our more affluent, individualist one.

The only reason I could give as to why libertarianism is better here than authoritarianism? I'd say it's because our culture and recent history have geared our society towards that sort of outlook on life, so to impose something other than that would go against majority opinion - honestly I don't really know though.
0
reply
the butter
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 8 years ago
#9
Free people are bound by the chains of their freedom.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (275)
42.18%
The paper was reasonable (269)
41.26%
Not feeling great about that exam... (60)
9.2%
It was TERRIBLE (48)
7.36%

Watched Threads

View All