free will & other matters

[Age]

If you are not intelligent enough to understand one of the fundamental
questions of philosophy, of the relationship between the state/society and the individual,
I really, really, really can't help you...

How kind of you. When I need your help, I know where not to call.

But what "peter kropotkin" said to you here, and the way they spoke to 'you' here, "immanuel can", was not much different from the way 'you' speak TO "others".

As can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout 'your' writings, here in this forum.

I can track the question just fine, thank you. Fine enough, in fact, to see problems with your construction to which you seem oblivious.

But your "gun" example, on which you hang so much, is clearly slanted to produce the assumption that the elimination of guns a) is in the interest of society, and b) is practical by social fiat. Both assumptions are highly contentious, but you've treated them as unproblematic.

How, exactly, would the elimination of a weapon created for the purpose of KILLING, not be in the interest of society, or the wrongly named and misnomer 'humanity', itself.

So if you don't see the problem with your example, it's only because you see only your own side. The case looks simple to you: much more simple than it ought.

Guns aren't an instance of individual-against-state. There are both individual and state reasons for both sides. Taking the issue seriously would mean understanding that, before you go on.

Not only that, but you've wrongly assumed the individual/state controversy is the same as the conservative/liberal controversy, rather than that the sides in the liberal/conservative controversies have different ideas about what the state should do, and what is legitimately an individual domain -- in other words, both conservatives and liberals have views of the individual, and views of the state. You missed that, too.

Are either of 'you' AWARE that individuals have different views, and NONE of them align to just ONE view like the other wrongly worded and misnomers of 'liberals' and 'conservatives'?

So what is a state versus individual issue, Peto? It's not the ones you've listed, for sure. Having a clear case would help you launch a better conversation.

I agree.

And you might really be surprised how the other side thinks.

Why is there seemingly ALWAYS this perception of the "other side"?

Naturally the Universe works with two opposite or other things, working in opposing or other ways, and the Universe could not work in ANY other way, but there does NOT necessarily have to be an "other side" of much else that I can SEE, on a very quick and first GLANCE and THOUGHT here.

[Age]

Trying to balance the needs of the individual and the needs of society is what characterizes Western democracies.

Where the needs of society come first, these needs are usually established by those few who hold authoritarian power.
Like in China.

Will you provide ANY examples?

If no, then why not?

Also, considering the Fact that EVERY society is made up of individuals, then it would be blatantly obvious that the 'needs' of 'society' would be the EXACT SAME 'needs' of the individuals, WITHIN 'that society'.

Unless, OF COURSE, examples showing otherwise would like to be provided here now.

If, on the other hand, the needs of the individual prevail, then society risks dissolving into anarchism.

However, all of this has little to do with free will. Which can safely be overlooked in this matter. Which is not affected by whether or not free will exists.

Instead, it is the limits that are imposed on society and on the individual that play a decisive role.
But these limits are set in a democracy by the majority, which expresses the feelings of the population.