Too much of a good thing?

[granfire]

This problem was presented on a different forum:

Is there a country where too much freedom or liberalism has failed?

I am scratching my head. I could think of 2 possibilities (which I am keeping to myself for now), but really I can't see where too much freedom was reason for failure of a country.

Thoughts?

 

[Sukerkin]

Well, I would argue that that is precisely the problem we have here in Britain i.e. too much freedom. It might seem a bit odd to say so given the proliferation of laws in the past decade or so but the enforcement of those is patchy, usually only regulating those who would intend to act within those bounds anyhow.

Being too free to do what you wish without consequence is the root of a long 'rot' of a culture; for a society is organised around an agreed set of rules that restrict freedom (in a hopefully benign way) for the benefit of everyone.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

That gets back to the "state of nature" argument you see in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, etc.

Control vs Freedom in a continuum, say a 10 scale with freedom on a 1 and 1984 on a 10.

The state of nature (1) is living on your own with no restrictions on your behavior at all. You have absolute freedom, but limited safety and limitations on what you can accomplish because cooperation becomes problematic.

An absolutely controlled (10) state (if benign) provides a lot of safety, at the cost of your freedom. We'll assume for sake of example that it is run by well-meaning despots...nobody's going to disappear you, but you have rigid controls on free speech, movement and "victimless" crimes.

Some number between 1 and 10 is the ideal state -- the perfect balance of safety and freedom. Anything lower would be too free. The really interesting question is where that number is....and if it's a static number, or if it changes with times and cultures.

 

[granfire]

That gets back to the "state of nature" argument you see in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, etc.

Control vs Freedom in a continuum, say a 10 scale with freedom on a 1 and 1984 on a 10.

The state of nature (1) is living on your own with no restrictions on your behavior at all. You have absolute freedom, but limited safety and limitations on what you can accomplish because cooperation becomes problematic.

An absolutely controlled (10) state (if benign) provides a lot of safety, at the cost of your freedom. We'll assume for sake of example that it is run by well-meaning despots...nobody's going to disappear you, but you have rigid controls on free speech, movement and "victimless" crimes.

Some number between 1 and 10 is the ideal state -- the perfect balance of safety and freedom. Anything lower would be too free. The really interesting question is where that number is....and if it's a static number, or if it changes with times and cultures.

True (I suppose)

But pick a specific example!
(not that easy?)

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I'd point to most of sub-saharan Africa. The lack of legitimate government control -- i.e. total freedom for those with the resources or evil to use it -- has led to what is essentially mob rule. Too much freedom means the strong can take freedom from the weak.

More "control" would actually result in greater freedom and better quality of life for most.

 

[Big Don]

Complete freedom would be anarchy. Anarchists, like naked people, have little or no influence on society.

 

[Nomad]

Complete freedom would be anarchy. Anarchists, like naked people, have little or no influence on society.

Wait... what do you have against naked people?

 

[granfire]

Well, I thought in terms of past regimes.

France post Revolution. With the framework removed, the land did fall into chaos and war...emerging on the other end as yet another type of monarchy (though the law codex Napoleon left behind was ground breaking at the time)

Also, the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. That's what happens when you force people who are unprepared and unwilling to practice democracy.