Infringing upon free will

J

Jeremyhfht

Registered Senior Member
Given the present system, and how illogical/illiterate most average citizens are, they abuse their free will in such a way that it's impossible to make corrections to a broken social system. Therefore I purpose we limit certain freedoms of the populace. Temporarily of course.

An example of some of the things requiring regulation/"fixing" include: reproduction, beliefs, free-market, and media.

I'll explain these so you get the basic idea. I'll also include a very brief example of what would improve in each system. Keep in mind that I'm keeping it as basic as possible.

Reproduction: without limitation has succeeded in making our planet over bloated with more humans than any economy can handle. Eugenics would succeed in shrinking populations to more manageable levels, while improving genetics for future purposes.

Beliefs: Effect us in many ways, and lead to wanton ignorance of facts. Therefore, beliefs would be regulated by enforcing education principles. This also includes revamps of the education system so it's more efficient.

Free-market: Tends to fail, as greedy humans succeed in manipulating it towards monopolies (this is why governments of today still step in to regulate). It also leads to people being overcharged excessively, and the economy suffering due to unregulated pricing.

Media: The media has a long history of spreading Controversy instead of Facts. The infringing here would deal with removing such stupidity, and forcing factual reporting without such blatant controversy and media bias. This merely skims the surface, but the basic idea is conveyed.

These are examples of what could be improved, and simple examples as to how. Each of them require, in some way, free will to be infringed. Yet each of them, along with other possible inclusions, would only better mankind. I also remind you that these infringes would be temporary.

So finally, after examples are explained: Would it be moral to temporarily infringe upon free will in order to make needed changes upon society, for the betterment of society as a whole? I merely wish for opinions, not rebuts, as this is more of a philosophical question.
 
It would be moral, but I don't think it will happen anytime soon anywhere that matters.
 
Baron Max said:
No.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

So every society ever proposed or existant has been fundamentally immoral?
Even the most libertarian proposals include temporary restrictions on people in various situations.
Perhaps you are what is incorrectly call an anarchist. No rules, those who can, do. Of course this entails their restricting the freedoms of others on occasion, if not often.
 
Grantywanty said:
So every society ever proposed or existant has been fundamentally immoral?
Click to expand...

"Fundamentally immoral"??? Morals are purely subjective from any of many various perspectives. If a society infringes on the "rights" of some of the citizens, then from the perspective of those citizens, it's NOT moral.

Grantywanty said:
Even the most libertarian proposals include temporary restrictions on people in various situations.
Click to expand...

And to the people being restricted, it wasn't very nice, was it? See? It depends on the perspective. You can talk about YOUR OWN perspective, but please don't forget to look at things from the perspective of others ...else your viewpoint will be horribly one-sided and egotistical.

Grantywanty said:
Perhaps you are what is incorrectly call an anarchist. No rules, those who can, do. Of course this entails their restricting the freedoms of others on occasion, if not often.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that I can't see things from the perspective of others, and not make judgements using ONLY my own perspective.

I'm all for the society to have a greater role than any one individual, but that doesn't mean that I can't argue from that individual's point of view. And when I do so, I often discover many things that I failed to take into account by being so egotistical and self-centered. Try it, you'll like it.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:

"Fundamentally immoral"??? Morals are purely subjective from any of many various perspectives.
Click to expand...

Indeed. (It's nice that we agree on something from time to time.)

If a society infringes on the "rights" of some of the citizens, then from the perspective of those citizens, it's NOT moral.
Click to expand...

I like the quotation marks around the word "rights"; if the "infringement of rights" is appropriate according to the existing social contract between government and people, does it matter whether those citizens think the condition is immoral? Or is it time for revolution, so to speak?
 
tiassa said:
...if the "infringement of rights" is appropriate according to the existing social contract between government and people, does it matter whether those citizens think the condition is immoral? Or is it time for revolution, so to speak?
Click to expand...

Huh? If the action is deemed appropriate, then how could the citizens think that it's immoral at the same time?

Somehow, I think you didn't ask that question properly ...maybe left out a word or two? Or forgot to put in a word or two? It's confusing to me.

Baron Max
 
Who gets to decide whose creed. central economics has failed everywhere that it has been tried. The most horrible and violent restrictions an involuntary abortions have barely managed to halt/slow the chinese population growth. This assumes that you are able to take people like myself out of the equation because I will fight you and your thought police to my last breath and will smash your system like the garbage that it is. I can not help but wonder if you picked the worst most inflamatory ideas of the last century anddecided to post them. Was your post a joke because upon reflection it was pretty funny.
 
the problem is that every culture has different morals. WHo is to say witch moral are correct and witch are not. Try to explain to some tribes why kannabalism is against morals.

Do you accept a man with several spounces ?
Who is to decide if it's immoral.

The danger of taking away the freedom of citizens is that you create a dictatorship. What if the wrong person takes over the power.
Even in justice their are tomany backdoors for the few. what would happen when those are in control of everything.
al those people who have lost their lives so you have freedom would have died invane.

Indeed there are to many humans for our planet to handle. But are you going to decide with ones have the right to maintain?
 
laughing weasel said:
Who gets to decide whose creed. central economics has failed everywhere that it has been tried. The most horrible and violent restrictions an involuntary abortions have barely managed to halt/slow the chinese population growth. This assumes that you are able to take people like myself out of the equation because I will fight you and your thought police to my last breath and will smash your system like the garbage that it is. I can not help but wonder if you picked the worst most inflamatory ideas of the last century anddecided to post them. Was your post a joke because upon reflection it was pretty funny.
Click to expand...

You obviously assumed that I'd be using the exact same type of restrictions as other countries. A highly inaccurate assumption. My own thought processes dwelt more upon limiting mediums that would cause the public to make judgments based on misinformation, extreme bias, etc. For the greater good of humanity as a whole, and preferably the education of such.

If the intentions, and the methods used, are honorable...then why would you need to fight it or "smash the system"? There'd be nothing to smash. Merely cleaning up the chaotic influx of stupidity and lies.

P.S: Lord Vasago I'd prefer we leave Moral Relativism out of this, as I already know. It was more "is it moral in your view" regarding rationality.
 
Ok then if i would see it "in my views of morality" i don't believe restrictions would be possible to do without creating some sort of discontect with the general population. I follow you when you say than lot of things would better be controlled: media for exaple.

But the problem still is: who would be in control. There a lot of things that are corupt so when you take the freedom away from the people and media,
how do you ever fight coruption simple because you would know there would be any coruption.
the coin has two sides; allways has, allways will have
 
You can't anyway. Name one time where the media exposed corruption properly, on a full in-depth level, and the people reacted enough to change that corruption?
 
Sorry, but no, the government handled that itself. The media merely reported it as far as I know. Nor is that a situation where the people (not the government) did jack.
 
The government took action to mitigate the peoples' reaction to the reporting by the media. Otherwise Nixon would have gotten away with it. By your logic, the media has no effect on the government. Were it not for the media, the US would have become a dictatorship long ago. In fact that is why Bush seeks, and Nixon sought, to supress the media. Every dictator wannabe does that. Every dictatorship must control its media.
 
zanket said:
The government took action to mitigate the peoples' reaction to the reporting by the media. Otherwise Nixon would have gotten away with it. By your logic, the media has no effect on the government. Were it not for the media, the US would have become a dictatorship long ago. In fact that is why Bush seeks, and Nixon sought, to supress the media. Every dictator wannabe does that. Every dictatorship must control its media.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but then ....who controls the media?

As I see it now, it's the media that's actually controls what we see, hear and mostly think. That can't be good.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Ahh, but then ....who controls the media?
Click to expand...
In the Watergate era, it was ultimately the end customers, who demanded unbiased reporting. Nowadays the wealthy have a good grip on the media, and their control is increasing. That is largely how the US is moving toward dictatorship. Someday the US media may only be able to report good or insignificant news, like in Myanmar and the book 1984. The trend is noticeable today by comparing US news to international news.
 
zanket said:
In the Watergate era, it was ultimately the end customers, who demanded unbiased reporting.
Click to expand...

And just how were the customers to determine what was bias or not??? See? They can't/couldn't ...and so the media held the power of controlling the thoughts of the customers by slanting the news toward their own biases. I worry about that abuse of power in the news media ...and it's getting much, much worse as time goes on.

zanket said:
Nowadays the wealthy have a good grip on the media, and their control is increasing. That is largely how the US is moving toward dictatorship.
Click to expand...

I disagree. For one thing, the wealthy have ALWAYS had a good grip on the news media ...never did the poor or even middle class have any kind of control. So if because of that, the US is moving toward dictatorship, it's sure as hell moving awfully slow! The rich want things to stay as they are, it's where and how their wealth is accumulated and growing. A dictatorship, of most any form, would prevent that gain of wealth except for only a very few.

In my view, the US is moving inexorably toward civil war. And not an uprising against the government, but a breaking up of the people into factions. It's evident all over this nation on so many different points and issues. And the news media is prodding this divisiveness by their biased reporting of events.

You seem to have a classical view of the news media, and in my view, that's one of the things that's actually created so much tension and conflict in the world. They don't report the news, they slant it with political bias. That's abuse of power in the worst way!

Baron Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top