livingispolitical said: If someone wishes to do something that would create a victim, societies response is that person must undergo rehabilitation (which I agree is better than prison), isn’t that person’s freedom being limited? ie can “total freedom” truly exist 4 all?
There is a difference between your ability to be free to kill and maim who ever you wish and your ability to live in a free society.
Well then how do we define freedom? How do we understand the concept of the free individual and it’s dialectal relationship within the free society?
The capacity to choose what one does is limited by one’s, ones upbringing, one’s social situation, one’s material conditions. How can we claim to ever have this notion of total freedom realised when we have no base point to relate to, we cannot know the human in a state of vacuum from external influence to know what a truly free choice would be. What’s more for someone to exist in this vacuum of external influence and be able to make completely free choices, they are then removed from an existence in which there are things to make choices over.
“Total freedom” does not exist. It is better conceptualised as freedoms with finite limits, or liberties.
I’m not saying this to refute the notion that anarchy is an ideal state for the human being to find themselves in (as a Marxist my final destination is a state of anarchy, per se, but the route I see in the conundrum is different), but instead to find a more effective and beneficial structure in the way in which we philosophically approach the discussion of society.