A question of free will...

[Technocrat]

A philosophical question if you will, and because I think this place would produce some interesting answers.

In debate with an associate of mine, I asked her whether she thought police and law were a restriction of free will. After all, they serve to prevent actions of a certain nature (which would be detrimental to society), either preemptively or punitively. She said they were not.

I then asked her whether the technocratic idea of laws violated free will - i.e. ones that could not physically be broken due to mechanisms in place. For example, you can't hop on to the train without paying, since you can't physically get on to it. She said no, once again.

I posited the third option - if a person is physically incapable of breaking the law, either because they break down wretching when they consider doing so (a la Ludovico process in a Clockwork Orange), or because of drilling and conditioning. This, she feels is violation of free will.

I find it hard to agree - after all, it acts as a means of preventing a crime before it happens. Whether that's because a policeman is holding you back from assaulting someone, or because something in your brain has given you an adverse reaction to attempting to do so seems merely to be a difference of method. What do folk here think? Is it a restriction of free will? Is any kind of law enforcement a restriction? Is it desirable?

[Akatosh]

Well, of course law and law enforcement take away some of people's freedoms; the freedom to kill, the freedom to steal and the freedom to rape to name just three. And from the examples I named you can probably glean which side I'm on. 

/EDIT: And this is why you shouldn't go without sleep for prolonged episodes 'n' post, kids.

[Raider]

Technically they do not take away the free will as they cannot prevent anyone from doing it. The only thing they enforce is a punishment for these actions. You can do what ever you like if you are willing to pay the consequences. However they will prevent you from doing these crimes if they are around but most of the time the police aren't following you. There are of course those issues brought up that physically deny you access to areas and freedoms such as the train example.

[Stupot]

Having laws and a policeforce, may technically contradict the literal notion of free will, but imagine a world where people did what the hell they wanted... it would be a horrible place to live for decent people like ourselves.

It also depends what your government considers to be a 'law'.  Thankfully Britain seems to be a place with generally logical laws, but consider some dictatorial regimes who forbid their citizens to read certain kinds of books or listen to certain kinds of music, simply because they contradict the theme of that particular regime.

Restricting people's free will simply to control them is bad... doing it to protect people is good... sometimes there is a fine line between what is there to protect us and what is there to control us, but I haven't really given this issue as much thought as I feel I wish I had.

[LUniqueDan]

I can't fly. Therefore gravity restrains my free will.
In that sense, yes, any law inforcement is interferring with free will.

On a more sociological approach, it is my will to don't get killed by a drunk driver. Therefore : Those laws are not restraining my free will.

On a psychological sense, if I'm totally well socialised with the above laws (to the point of never challenge them intellectually) yes It interfered with my free will. Because it sets the maze in which I'm a Rat avoiding thinking outside the box.

But :

Some definitions of free will included very well the fact that rats in a maze have choices anyway.


On a more nietzschean approach, free will is a pure illusion created by theologians in order to explain why some are believers and why some are not.

- Choose what you want -
- We're all doomed anyway 

[Khris]

Technocrat:
It sounds like you're confusing free will with anarchy.
Free will is a philosophical concept meaning that a person is capable of choosing a way of life, of making decisions, as opposed to going down a path already laid out by fate.
It's unknown and fiercely debated if people have a free will or not, afaik.
(It comes down to whether there's a "soul"; if there isn't, it's all just particles colliding, predetermined since the big bang.)

Do police/the law restrict my ability to do whatever I like (and am physically and mentally capable of)? No.
Raider put it well.

[Technocrat]

Alright, I guess I was being unclear. I suppose what I'm more going for is: Why is it alright to have preventive mechanisms that stop someone committing a crime such as a police officer holding you back from assaulting someone, but why does she feel that having something that physically prevents you from committing crime because your body won't allow it is unreasonable?

[Layabout]

In debate with an associate of mine, I asked her whether she thought police and law were a restriction of free will. After all, they serve to prevent actions of a certain nature (which would be detrimental to society), either preemptively or punitively. She said they were not.

Laws don't prevent free will. They discourage such acts that as a whole we see as morally dubious or wrong, but one could still go out and commit murder if they wanted to. I could download music without having a license for using said music if I wanted to. I am exercising free will and breaking a law.

Doing something and being punished for that action does not take away free will.

[ThreeOhFour]

West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a philosophy here.

>examine philosophy
The philosophy eyes you smugly.

>open philosophy
You can't open that!

>engage in philosophy
As you try to engage in the philosophy, the philosophy suddenly attacks you! What do you want to do?

>disagree with philosophy
You put forward your best argument, but the philosophy indicates that you are treating the matter subjectively and therefore are not seeing the whole picture.

>agree with philosophy
You try to agree with the philosophy. It changes tactics and disagrees with you, saying you must always question everything before accepting it.

>ignore philosophy
You turn your back on the philosophy. It eats you.

You have died.

Your score: -13/403

Would you like to Quit, Restart, Restore?

>_

[TheJBurger]

The classic definition of freedom is that you are free to do whatever you want only if it does not impinge on others' freedom. (ie, violating their rights)

I don't know if that technically has anything to do with your question or not.

[alex]

Free will:

A person is free to start an organisation called the police.
A person is free to join or leave the police
Hence a "police force" is itself a product of free will (assuming one does not believe in causality).

Also:

A person is free to rebel against the police.
A person is free to do their own thing.  Even start a war if the people around them have similar wishes and are in a position to exert their freedom more strongly than anyone who would freely choose a different path.

So I guess there is free will at an individual level, but how far that free will extends depends on whose will has more influence whether due to societal position, personal willpower, etc.

The fact of the matter is that I am free to oppose war, but others are free to make war.  We both have expressed our freedoms, only one freedom seems more powerful than another.

So I guess that's my spin on it.  We're all free, but a fat lot of good it does some of us.

[miguel]

I would say that, because we are intelligent, we follow rules, laws and even divine beings. But because we are intelligent we know that it's damn good to do whatever we want to!
Like everything else, the right move is somewhere in the middle.