On Balance, Individual Liberty is preferred over Individual Obedience

First Objection: Obedience and Liberty from a Ethical PerspectiveFirstly, we must rethink the mere conceptions of liberty; we divide it into "positive" and "negative" liberty. We take these concept of liberties and divide it into two forms; positive liberty is "I am free" whilst negative is that "I cannot be ensalved" Quite namely, positive liberty is statements that provide what liberty enables the free will of man to do, whilst negative protects the "free will" of man from further implications. Why is this significant? Because obedience has, literally, no moral value. Man obeys only to protect his liberty; this is no good will. Liberty on the other hand, has all the positive value. Accordingly to Immanuel Kant, man who "helps only because he likes to help" does the action without any moral value. Only if it becomes duty, then moral value is restored.With this said, let us refute the opposition here; J.S Mill's words about what liberty is for (those who have fully developed one's faculty) does not necessarily mean that "liberty" is more preferable that obedience. For albeit the young man may have his faculties undeveloped, he has the liberty to walk to his bedroom, and he has the liberty to eat when he wills. To argue that liberty suceed obedience is also a violation of the Humean Guillotine, and a strawman of the argument in question. Back to our point about Kantian Morality; if obedience is a means for the preservation of something else, and not considered a duty, then it would be more than idiotic to consider obedience to have moral worth. Let us prove the predicate of this proposition first; on the preservation of liberty via obedience.As proven before in the Prisoner's Dilemma, man co-operates in order for self advancement, and no other reason except for that. The Social Contract theory is highly based on the Prisoner's Dilemma; the dilemma shows what our ancestors had to go through to establish civilized society. But perhaps this might not be enough to affirm such facts; let us take the example of the "savage" in Rousseau's Second Discourse:All ran headlong to their chains, in hopes of securing their liberty; for they had just wit enough to perceive the advantages of political institutions, without experience enough to enable them to foresee the dangers.The institutions of the government were not infinite in age, for governments are abstract representations that cannot exist indepedent of reasoning (accordingly to the two divisions of Arthur Schopenhauer). All abstract representations are necessarily a priori or a posteriori. "An infinite thing cannot be created" is an a priori statement as the beginnings represent a limitation being broken. As a government can be created, adjusted and ultimately created, then it follows that it cannot be infinite, or in Aristotelian Logical Form:P1. All infinite substances cannot be createdP2. All governments are createdC. All governments are not infiniteWhat does this prove? That if the government is not infinite, then its powers has to be neccessarily finite, especially in preserving authority. Ultimately, as the opposition proves, the ends of obedience is liberty; the end is the desired consequence here. The process of huge investments is not ultimately to do it as a categorical imperative, but to make money; the ends of reproduction is not neccessarily pleasure, but offshoot; the ends of the government is not necessarily more obedience and oppression, but liberty.Objection Two: Liberty, Obedience and the Excess of BothThe excess of freedom is never harmful, but an excess in obedience often leads to tyranny and genocides. Excess of liberty is one of the greatest formalities that men can enjoy in his life time; excess in obedience one of the greatest terrors. Society is a blessing, but government is a necessarily sin. (Thomas Paine, Common Sense). Let us affirm here that the excess of liberty has not killed a single man, so far as liberty was accomodated by civil government; from the governments of England, whose liberties were restored after the deposition of Charles I, to the governments of Singapore, whose liberty was gradually restored to them after a period of long "soft authoritarianism" by Lee Kuan Yew.The opposition argues that liberty destroys liberty itself, but this does nothing to prove the point of debate; all it does is to show that obedience is more justified than liberty, and ultimately, that obedience is used to maintain liberty. Let us take the natural rights theory for a second here; albeit it does not exist from a scientific perspective, the natural rights theory (NRT) shows that in the state of nature, every right is hard to defend, even if there are natural. Henceforth, the transition from the state of nature to the state of civilized society is only reached via the compromisation of some rights in order for liberty to be sustained. Nevertheless, let us talk about obedience in general first; obedience is a negative value, and this has been proven already, due to the fact that obedience necessarily attempts to defer an infinite being. All negative values often turn into tyranny; the right not be enslaved turned into tyranny of the majority in France, and a similar case was turned into absolutist republicanism during the aftermath of the English Civil War. However, negative obedience implies much more; negative obedience gave rise to the totalitarian trio of the world, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, who together, killed more men than anyone could have killed in a short period of time. The Rwandan Genocide, built upon the institutions of negative racism, and ultimately obedience to the Hutu power ideology, killed 1 million people in 100 days. Obedience necessarily created death, and ultimately, more deaths than negative liberty, the only liberty capable of killing, can ever inflict. Objection Three: Arguments from NeuroscienceArguments from neuroscience here states that since the mental faculties of some are not up for the task of liberty, henceforth liberty should be wholly abolished for those. This is an absurd statement, for no physical determinant can refute the fact that all men have individual worth, and are all born socially equal.Nevertheless, the prefrontal cortex in the human is indeed underdeveloped until the age of 25. Yet this part of the brain is often used to reason about the consequences; it is the consequentalism factor of the brain. [1] This does not prove anything; as, accordingly to empiricism, all knowledge comes through via sense experience, henceforth these people should be given protected positive liberty as a means of the gainign of sensual knowledge. We have, in our first round, affirm that liberty of the mind allows scientific discoveries to happen; the Age of Reason, the Renaissance and the Golden Age were only some of these factors. With this, I shall conclude my arguments.The main maxims of this argument is derived from the first deontological maxim that we have presented; that obedience preserves liberty, and the triad "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is only preserved via obedience, so henceforth, obey if and only if you are not oppress and liberty is free.However, this main maxim is also surpassed by the fact that liberty, as an epistemological position, has yielded more scientific breakthroughs than obedience, and this is proven in the Age of Reason, the Renaissance and the Golden Age, in which liberty was given to think, and the main breakthroughs of this century would have been impossible without them.This is preceded by the fact that authoritarian governments, and obedience (especially excess of it) creates mental disorders that are beyond comprehension. The last contention views liberty as a positive value, and obedience as a negative one. We end with this final argument for the preferability of liberty over obedience: 1. It is possible in some worlds that some men are superior to other men 2. It is possible that in some worlds, some men are created superior to other men 3. From 1 and 2, possibility of superiority via birth and via ability is a possibility. 4. (D) Negative Value is defined as a process that attempts to make something finite. i.e It attempts to make liberty infinite, but ultimately one cannot conceive infinity with something greater.5. (D) Positive Value is defined as the value/virtue that makes liberty infinite. i.e Nothing can be conceived as greater than liberty6. (D) Obedience is the only thing able to be conceived that is greater than liberty7. (D) Liberty is the infinite characteristic that can only be conceived and deterred by obedience.8. It is self evident from 1 and 2 that liberty can be made finite, but is not originally finite. According to 4, another must conceive whatever is negative in regards to liberty. According to 6, the only thing greater than liberty is obedience. 9. C: Henceforth obedience is a negative value in all worlds. 10.According to 1 and 2, superiority may be conceived in some possible universes. 11.If superiority may be conceived in some possible universes, and obedience is a negative value, then demand for obedience can only stem from the superior12.According to 10, if demands for obedience comes from the superior, then the superior necessarily imposes a negative value onto a man13.(Ax) Infinity is the greatest14.(Ax. from 8) If liberty is infinity, then liberty is the greatest15.All attempts to limit infinity are necessarily finite.16.By (13), liberty is the greatest and an attempt to finite liberty is a negative value, henceforth, via this humans have limited themselves to something finite (finite is not the greatest) rather than something infinite (infinity is the greatest)17.Obedience is finite and can only deter liberty Citations:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...