Do you think it’s better to force or allow free choice

[Sabbathhhank]

Which do you think I’d better choice and free will or deciding as a whole for three populous or people (since many people are fickle and prone to indies ion and being passive followers) to questionably but is considered to be in their best benefit? Of course you can have both but they both bring up a host of question and answers which are different and hard to reach conclusions which all on their own.

I was particularly thinking about the social and political nature behind Europe, Germany and Britain and America. It’s quite interesting to compare different notes and preferences they had for civic life and governance.

 

[Lark]

The harm principle is important.

Besides that the most important thing to consider is not decisiveness or indecision but self-government and eradicating servility, otherwise known as freedom.

While you are making choices for people, exercising coercive control, dominance or dictatorship in some shape then you're not permitting anyone to develop all the necessary habits, expectations and awareness necessary for self-government and resisting servility, freedom is means and freedom is end. People learn by doing. Marking ballots every once in a while, usually with long periods as an onlooker in between times teach very little.

It wouldnt happen over night, people have little or no sovereignty at present, not as citizens (politics), not as consumers (economic) and most of the time there's little in the way of civil society/free association/spontaneous order for the average person, its all a limited, elite affair like the other spheres of life. Its because the world has evolved to something more closely resembling Schumpeter's Limited Democracies than a Participatory Democracy.

Exclusion and exclusivity have rendered people passive, it wasnt accidential and I dont buy ANY of that self-congratulatory, juvenile bullshite about everyone being "sheeple" who arent part of your favourite online echo chamber. Throw TV into the mix and how its rendered most people even more stupid and given them a diet of "reality" TV and celebrities, blurred the lines between actual life and fantasy and there you have it.

What's going on with the title of the thread? Why so identified with whoever/whatever is forcing whoever/whatever? Who or what is "allowing" free choice? Are you going to be the subject of being forced or just someone else? Why so? Why so quick to forfeit your own free choices?

 

[Maou]

Free will is an illusion, and most all can be explained by evolutionary physchology and instinct. Society should be dominated with effective control and channeling of our natures to work. Sports is a substitute for violence, for example.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Free will is an illusion, and most all can be explained by evolutionary physchology and instinct. Society should be dominated with effective control and channeling of our natures to work. Sports is a substitute for violence, for example.

Reee

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Life isn't worth living without choice.

 

[Virtual ghost]

That totally depends on what exactly is being forced and under which circumstances.

 

[Lark]

Free will is an illusion, and most all can be explained by evolutionary physchology and instinct. Society should be dominated with effective control and channeling of our natures to work. Sports is a substitute for violence, for example.

Yeah, well, that really is a bunch of words.

 

[Tellenbach]

It depends on what you value as the ultimate goal. People are happier when given choices, but people also do stupid, dangerous things when given choices.

You can be happy or you can be safe but miserable. This dividing line is also what separates the two major political parties in America.