Egalitarian Order Theory

[Genivaria]

So I and many people have heard over the years of this question in some form.
Would you chose Equality or Order? Would you sacrifice freedom for security?

On NSG alone this question has been asked a hundred times over and behind this question is the sinister notion that the lack of freedom and the embracing of authoritarianism and tyranny somehow leads to more order, efficiency, and security.

I strongly believe differently.
I believe this to be nothing more then a lie; that sadly convinces even many opponents of authoritarianism.

Using the Democratic Peace Theory as a foundation I believe in something more akin to an Egalitarian Order Theory that expands upon the DPC.
Basically, when a society values equality and no group or individual has any more rights then anyone else the people are content.
When a society values freedom and allows people to think and do as they wish, people are content.
And when a society values democracy they know that they can peacefully remove an inept or corrupt government from power and that political office is open to all citizens, they are content.
Thus I would assert that Liberal Democracies are far more stable and healthy then tyrannical dictatorships and monarchs.

Order doesn't need to be a priority, focus on freedom, justice, fairness, and equality, and order simply follows.

Now can we please put this long standing myth to rest?
Mussolini did not in fact make the trains run on time.

[Prezelly]

There needs to be balance between order and freedom. Too much order leads to overall unhappiness and too much freedom leads to people abusing said freedom.
Also, equality and order do not necessarily conflict

[Bachmann America]

I firmly believe that Moral Order is more important than the "freedom" to be immoral.

[Morr]

The society you talk about is impossible under capitalism.

It was Franco, not Mussolini, who was famous for making the trains run on time, iirc.

[Geilinor]

The society you talk about is impossible under capitalism.

It was Franco, not Mussolini, who was famous for making the trains run on time, iirc.

And yet Spain under democracy has faster trains.

[Morr]

I firmly believe that Moral Order is more important than the "freedom" to be immoral.

I agree, but only to the point that it is Christian to enforce. We do not have to right to apply force to alter the morality of others unless they are harming or oppressing, for we are all sinners, and it is not our part to judge, but God's.

[The Liberated Territories]

Freedom. No exceptions!

[Morr]

The society you talk about is impossible under capitalism.

It was Franco, not Mussolini, who was famous for making the trains run on time, iirc.

And yet Spain under democracy has faster trains.

I don't think it's a good basis to judge the worth of a system one way or another.

[Fanosolia]

Personally that is my ideal what you just discribed. But I should add that, as a society, we must be responsible with our freedom. If not for safety or respect of others, to prove authoritians wrong.

[Genivaria]

I firmly believe that Moral Order is more important than the "freedom" to be immoral.

Order merely for order's sake is called tyranny, and is doomed to fail.

[Infected Mushroom]

Freedom is more important than anything else.

The freedom to make my own mistakes, was all I've ever wanted.

[New Werpland]

I'm into a kind of mix between Liberalism and some Paternalism. Just because an act is mutual doesn't mean it's right, while I'm alright with people doing what they want for the most part.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Yeah, I agree. I think violence largely begets violence, and the state and ruling class create most of the problems they use to justify their authoritarian policies.

[The Conez Imperium]

I like the freedom ideology. Volunteer Army is really useful especially since the 6 foreign legion units are no-maintenance and you get them immediately!

Order on the other hand, meh. Its only useful for long empires

[Zhouguo]

I choose order because I prefer work to slack, not because I believe the communalist society described can't function.

[Ardoki]

"Who needs freedom if the government gives us free stuff and we can have fun."

Inyourfaceistan gave a perfect summing up of my views on governing. 'Bread and Circuses' is good! As long as the people are happy and prosperous freedom is not necessary.

[Mysterious Stranger]

I'm into a kind of mix between Liberalism and some Paternalism. Just because an act is mutual doesn't mean it's right, while I'm alright with people doing what they want for the most part.

It seems like if an act is really mutual, then it's not one of the parties exploiting the other. And I think the wrong is injustice- exploitation. So unless two people are cooperating to exploit a third person, I don't see any particular way for it to be wrong. And even then, that would seem to be a case of insufficient mutuality- the group which interacts on mutual terms being insufficiently large.

[Lalaki]

Freedom is order.

Having a stable democracy, freedom of speech, a rigid justice system, and individual autonomy will lead to an active but peaceful citizenry. But oppressing the rights of your citizens will only lead to instability in the long run.

[New Skaaneland]

I think you're asking the wrong question. Freedom isn't order, but we don't always need order for things to work. Capitalism in its basic isn't order, yet it tends to be the most efficiant system for humans, especially if it's not all too structured and centralised. There are reasons why the private sector tends to make more profit than the public sector. Forced orders simply aren't as good as the natural outcome of a free society.

[New Werpland]

I'm into a kind of mix between Liberalism and some Paternalism. Just because an act is mutual doesn't mean it's right, while I'm alright with people doing what they want for the most part.

It seems like if an act is really mutual, then it's not one of the parties exploiting the other. And I think the wrong is injustice- exploitation. So unless two people are cooperating to exploit a third person, I don't see any particular way for it to be wrong. And even then, that would seem to be a case of insufficient mutuality- the group which interacts on mutual terms being insufficiently large.

Even a mutual act can be coerced in some way or another, a person for example could accept to a wage that he can't live on, but has to anyway because of his financial situation. But there can be many horrible acts that are truly mutual, like consensual cannibalism for example.

[Ostroeuropa]

I agree.

Further, i'd call tyrannical order "False order."
You're still getting people murdered, just not in the streets. It's done out of sight.

You still get a lack of respect for property and human life. It's just a large, organized group holding a monopoly on it, and doing it out of sight.
There are just as many aspects of criminal chaos in a dictatorship, it's just the criminals wear a different type of hat.

A dictatorship may make people FEEL safe, and feel like there is order. And that's the aspect people latch onto, especially compared to TRANSITIONALLY liberal democracies, which are rife with constant protests and demands for more rights.

But once settled into a state of actual liberal democracy, the streets are just as orderly and such.
More so, even, for the reason I pointed out.

[Costa Fierro]

The society you talk about is impossible under capitalism.

It was Franco, not Mussolini, who was famous for making the trains run on time, iirc.

And yet Spain under democracy has faster trains.

*puts on nerd hat*

This is because rail technology has improved markedly since then. It's not a measure of government aptitude or administration, it's simply that technology has advanced quite a bit in 40 years.

*removes nerd hat*

On topic, the idea that with freedom, liberty and democracy comes stability and security is, somewhat, misguided. You can have a healthy mix of both that is able to react and prevent threats to national security effectively whilst ensuring the privacy and the freedoms of the citizenry.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I think freedom and order don't even belong in the same dichotomy.

Order is the opposite of chaos. While too much freedom is chaos, chaos is by no means limited to excessive freedom. Chaos is, strictly speaking, excess itself, including excess of order. Order is the opposite of excess, moderation. Both freedom and order are good in moderation and excess of either turn both into chaos.

The "free world" has taken the concept of freedom way too far, just like the authoritarian states of the world have taken order to excess. An excess of freedom becomes merely another form of enslavement, enslavement by one's own desires rather than by another person or state, as is the case under excessive order.

The powers that profit from enslavement have turned to using excess of freedom as their main tool of enslavement after the failure of order-based regimes. Where people are now keenly aware of the evils that excess of order can bring, they are yet to realize the dangers of unrestrained freedom, and it is precisely this ignorance of these dangers that the establishment exploits. The masses celebrate their false freedom, genuinely believing they are free and indulging in ever-increasing excesses dictated by their wants and cravings, while all the establishment has to do is control the sources that satisfy these cravings, as opposed to controlling the people themselves like it used to. Sooner or later, the deceived masses will begin to realize the truth and reject excess, and that is why the establishment is interested in keeping the cycle of excesses going for as long as possible - to deny the common rabble true freedom, because that would no longer be profitable.

[Wombocombo]

So like.
Are we talking Freedom for ANYTHING? Like the whole "Anarchy, punch people in the face for no reason, burn a building down" or freedom in the "I like to pick the color of my house and marry whoever I want".
There has to be a line in what you can do or people will start doing stupid shit.

I prefer order.

[Narland]

..freedom, justice, fairness, and equality, and order simply follows.

I tend to agree with Genivaria and also agree with what Ostroeuropa posted.

Law when ordered by right reason is most conducive to the afore mentioned things being fit, just, and true. Law and order is naturally conducive to liberty and equality. To use law and order as a pretense to hinder these things in neither lawful nor orderly (fitting). It is malfeasance under the color of authority (tyranny). The incoherence of that false dichotomy is glaringly noxious for those who hold to the correspondence theory of truth epistemologically or hold to an objective realist ontology. It is like saying, “In order to save the village we have to destroy it.”

But it's not people like Franco or Mussolini that make the trains run on time its cats like Skimbleshanks...