On Balance, Individual Liberty is preferred over Individual Obedience

Pro's arguments are very well thought out. I fear I may be out matched in this debate, nevertheless I will continue to contend. Pro says "The opposition quotes two great philosophers in concluding "empirically" that obedience precedes liberty. This may be true on a political timescale, but definitely not in a biological and psychological perspective; as we are here talking about individuals, and not society, it would be easy then to dismiss the appeals to society, and how obedience in political societies precedes liberty." I reaffirm that obedience does in fact precede liberty. This is not just true on a political timescale, and is most especially true biologically and psychologically. Consider again the words of John Stuart Mill ""It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine (of liberty) is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury."(1) "Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience"(1) Children, and others whose Prefrontal Cortex is not fully developed, do not have the capacity to properly apply the principle of personal liberty as they do not have the full capacity to reason. (2) (on a side note, due to this scientific truth, it is remarkable if not an anomaly that my opponent postulate such arguments in spite of his age. Color me impressed!) again as Locke stated ""The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free"(3)" Biologically it is evident that obedience precedes liberty Physiologically it is evident that obedience precedes liberty Pro says: " Humans obey because of the need to preserve even the slightest bit of their liberty Humans obey because the unconscious intuitive senses urges man to preserve the present free will." I will add that humans also obey because obedience begets liberty. Pro says "The opposition states that an excess of something is always bad, and an excess of obedience is always better than an excess of liberty. This is a lie; the state of nature has surely not killed as many people as the Holodomir or the Holocaust." I illustrated that anything taken to an extreme is harmful, I in no way argued that Obedience in excess is better than Liberty in excess. Obedience in excess destroys the liberty it created, and liberty in excess destroys liberty itself. Both are detrimental in excess. The self-evident truth still stands that liberty comes from obedience and without obedience there is no liberty. While it is also evident that Obedience and liberty complement each other, without obedience, liberty does not exist. Therefore personal obedience is preferred if not superior to personal liberty. (1) http://www.bartleby.com... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu... (3) http://www.constitution.org...