On Balance, Individual Liberty is preferred over Individual Obedience

You have very well written arguments. I remind pro that he is pro. I say this as he ended his argument stating "I believe that the resolution lies negated. " I do not think he intended to negate, but rather affirm his resolution. His argument seems to verify this. Pro's resolution is that "On Balance, Individual Liberty is preferred over Individual Obedience. " I contend that individual obedience to law begets individual liberty. Therefore, on balance, personal obedience is preferred if not superior to individual Liberty. Without obedience there is no liberty. Rebuttals: Contention one: Pro states: "(Ou\6;(LlO)) "Obey, if and only if (1) liberty is preserved and (2) obedience does not oppress. " "the ends of this proposition must be the preservation of liberty. " In response to Pro stating: "that "all men are born equal" I believe that this house does not need to affirm this, or even argue about it. " I submit the following quotes. John Stuart Mill in his work "On Liberty" said this: "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. For the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage" Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. "(1) He then goes on to conclude "Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one. "(1) John Locke, known as the "father of liberalism," had this to say about liberty and obedience. (taken from "Second Treatise of Civil Government" Chapter 6) "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"(2) It would seem empirically evident by these quotes that have heretofore been given, that the ideologies who postulated on liberty did not view all men as being born equal; At least in regards to the principle of liberty. They also seem to conclude that obedience precedes liberty. Counter argument: Liberty comes from obedience: John Locke also stated "the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom. " (3) Liberty is nothing without law, therefore nothing without obedience. The relationship between freedom/liberty is intertwined with obedience/law. The following is an illustration of this relationship. "imagine seeing a sign on the seashore that reads: "Danger"whirlpool. No swimming allowed here. " We might think that is a restriction. But is it? We still have many choices. We are free to swim somewhere else. We are free to walk along the beach and pick up seashells. We are free to watch the sunset. We are free to go home. We are also free to ignore the sign and swim in the dangerous place. But once the whirlpool has us in its grasp and we are pulled under, we have very few choices. We can try to escape, or we can call for help, but we may drown. "(4) If one is individually obedient to the restriction of the sign, there liberty is, at least maintained, and at most enlarged. This shows individual liberties are expanded by individual obedience. "The example of taxes can be briefly used to illustrate what can happen if we sacrifice some personal liberty to enlarge liberty as a society. When we sacrifice some personal liberty,"(or in other words are obedient to the law) "in this case financial liberty, we are potentially more free as a society. Those tax dollars create roads, provide security, fund education etc. Without which we would be less free. "(5) This illustrates again that personal obedience brings about more personal liberty and without obedience there is no liberty. Pro seems to agree with me as he stated "one shall make the argumenation that the groundworks for obedience is often the protection and sustainability factor of liberty itself. " Contention 2: "Contention Two: On History and Liberty" Pro concludes that "it was only because of the freedom of the use of reasoning, only available under liberty, that humans can think, and make scientific breakthrough. " While a nice conclusion it does not support personal liberty over personal obedience; especially, as the ideologies in the quotes above place emphasis on obedience. Contention 3: "Contention Three: Psychology, Evolution and Obedience" Pro contends that strict obedience can "causes mental disorders. " The source citied however is to a book that I cannot access. I will address this argument when pro provides a source that can be checked. For the purpose of argument I will state that anything carried to the extreme can be harmful. Drinking too much water is very common to drowning, my point being that obedience can be taken to the extreme. So can personal liberty. That is why those who postulate on the topic of liberty often include the "harm principle. " Otherwise personal liberty, when taken to the extreme folds on itself and attacks the very nature of liberty. (6) Contention 4: "Contention Four: Obedience as a Negative Value" Pro concludes that "the government best is the government that does not govern at all" Obedience is a negative value. Liberty is a positive one. " Again, as is evident by the arguments that have been made, liberty does not exist without obedience. Obedience and Liberty can both be carried to the extreme. Both can be negative and positive. Concluding rebuttal of contention 1 Pro's first argument, while well written, hardly supports his resolution. Personal obedience to law maintains and enlarges personal liberty. Therefore personal obedience is preferred if not superior to personal liberty. Without obedience to law there is no liberty. The resolution stands negated. Sources (1). http://www.bartleby.com... (2). http://www.constitution.org... (3). http://www.brainyquote.com... (4). https://www.lds.org... (5). http://www.infobarrel.com... (6). https://www.princeton.edu...