How Far Should We Curb The Freedom Of Individuals? Essay

There are legion(predicate) facets of immunity, and in my essay, I will discuss many of these such(prenominal)(prenominal) as independence of momentors line, freedom of beliefs and freedom of actions. When it comes to compensates and freedoms there is a paradox because with bulge responsibilities we concord no effectives and without restrictions we beat no freedom. further what exactly is freedom? The lexicon defines freedom as 1. personal liberty, as from slavery, serfdom etc. 2. liberation, as from confinement or bondage, 3. the quality or state of existence free, esp. to make merry political and civil liberties, 4. exemption or immunity freedom from taxation, 5. the right or privilege of unrestricted use or access the freedom of a city, 6. autonomy, self-government, or independence, 7. the power or liberty to order mavens suffer actions, 8. Philosophy, the quality esp. of the will or the somebody of being unrestrained, 9, ease or frankness of manner she talked with complete freedom, 10. excessive familiarity of manner, 11. ease and grace, as of movement.I will begin with the mortal right to freedom of idiom. We on the whole treat for granted that we confine freedom of lecture, provided some places such as Communist China mystify heavy limits on the freedom the individualist has to draw out their thinking. For example, in 1991, in Tiananme Square, many Chinese students objected to this heavily criminalise regime and there was uproar that led to the death of many students, one even being ran over by a tank. All that for freedom of speech. In Britain, we hand over freedom of speech to an extent, in fact compared to China, we have huge freedom, it is a liberty we take for granted.But should we have that a great deal freedom of speech? Here is an example there is a political party that has headquarters near you. The leaders of this party opine that all plurality whose lineage goes back to other countries should be returned to that country and and white Christians should remain living in Britain. Members of this party pass out leaflets to students from the local secondary school on their way home. Should these individuals freedom of speech be maintained? The answer is that we cant stop stack expressing their opinion.If their freedom is maintained and they continue to spread their racist propaganda, then the leaflets could rock the children who read them to be violent towards other races. (Scenario came from AS Guru website). If the freedom of speech is taken from these individuals then how do we ensure our let freedom of speech will be maintained? What if someone disagrees with us? The reality is that we do have freedom of speech and we cant be halt expressing our opinions, but in some circumstances, the freedom should be curbed to ensure battalion arent offended or hurt by another person. other individual freedom we take for granted in Britain is freedom to opt what religion we are part of or to what ex tent we take our beliefs. For example, Hindus have no choice about their religion because they are born into Hinduism. But most people living in Britain can try whether they want to be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist etc. But should we be allowed to do that? legion(predicate) people join cults in this country and other free states such as America and as a result can be convinced to commit suicide in extreme cases. For example, there have been many mass suicides as a result of cult leaders instructing their vulnerable followers to do so. An example of this sort of incident is the megalomaniac grand Jim Jones case. In November 1978 he ordered the 911 members of his cult to drink cyanide poison subsequently brainwashing them.In cases such as this, should the right of the individual be maintained to allow them to join a cult, or should we throw in and stop them joining in the first place? We can compete that in this kind of case the freedom of the individual should be curbed for the ir own safety, but in reality if we heavily curbed the freedom for one thing, perhaps it would have to be curbed for other individuals for different rights they hold. I believe that everybody has the right to freedom of conscience freedom of religion and spiritual practice, and to exercise them both publicly and privately because everyone is different and the extent and exact details of their beliefs as a result will be different. I do conceptualize though that when it becomes as obsessive as cults that perhaps somebody should intervene, if scarcely for the individuals safety.When we think of our freedom to act however we feel, we think we have complete freedom to conduct ourselves however we please. This is not the case though. We do not have the freedom to murder, rape or beat other people whenever we please. If we commit an offense such as this then we are aerated and in some cases, imprisoned. Should offenders have their personal freedom withdraw as a punishment? My persona l opinion is that if somebody has committed an offence severe enough to be placed in prison, then yes, their physiological freedom should be taken from them. A personal liberty such as being able to walk follow up the street being removed, to me, is a tidy enough punishment.However, sometimes, people have their freedom removed against their will. For example, they are taken hostage. Their liberty is forcefully taken away and so their freedom is curbed. This links to terrorists, because it is usually terrorists who take hostages. What gives terrorists the right to remove a persons freedom? What gives a terrorist the right to fly a plane into a building full of people, knowing they are pass to cause mass devastation such as in the new attack on the USA?Shouldnt their freedom have been curbed to celebrate such a huge loss of life such as in that attack? But there is only an extent as to how much we can curb their freedom to express their opinion. The fact that they chose to expre ss their feelings in such a violent and extravagant manner suggests that individual freedom should be curbed to avoid anything such as horrific accident again, but most people, no matter how they felt, wouldnt show their opinion like that. Perhaps people should feel that they feignt have the individual freedom to commit such a terrible act and then nothing like such as the American attacks.On the subject of freedom of actions, we dont have the freedom to decide whether or not we kick in taxes. For example, where would we finance all of the public work that taxes indemnify for if they didnt exist or if individuals decided not to pay them? Taxes are spent on the National Health Service, the Police Force, put down Service and Roadwork for example. If people didnt pay these taxes then we would have to pay for hospital treatment and to see a doctor etc like in Europe. Street lighting would not be funded and wed walk down dark streets and roads would be full of potholes and have oth er problems. Peoples freedom of choice therefore is curbed, and I think rightly so because other than the services we take for granted would simply not exist.So after looking at the arguments for and against the curbing of individual freedom, I personally believe that it should be curbed in a lot of ways for both the good of the individual and the others around them. Yes, we should be able to freely express our opinion, but in a civilised manner, and we should be free to conduct ourselves in our own ways as long as those methods we use dont hurt other people.