"Order without liberty, and liberty without order are equally destructive." (Roosevelt). Comment.

Definition

Order – an authoritative direction or instruction; command. With relevance to the society and the country, this refers mostly to the law and the government.

Liberty – the freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control, restriction, power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. In a nutshell, it is defined by the word autonomy. In the political context, it can also be substituted by the word ‘democracy’.

Destructive – being detrimental to the society and the country.

Introduction

Order and liberty are often used and described as contrasting terms in the context of the modern society. Order is defined as an authoritative direction or instruction, which in this case, can refer to the law and the role of the government in the society. Liberty, the freedom from control and restriction, can be defined by the word ‘autonomy’. Although ‘Order’ seems to be an antonym of ‘Liberty’, the paradox is that both order and liberty are needed to ensure the survival of the society. There is an intricate balance between order and liberty, and if the concept of liberty does not exist in the society, or even forcibly removed, it would result in adverse circumstances for the society. On the other end of the spectrum, if the principle of autonomy exists without the intervention of an authority, it could eventuate in chaos and conflict in the society.

Points

Order without liberty (in extreme cases)
- A form of coercion – using force to compel obedience.
- The ruler is trying to create a mirage of stability, when the society is obviously unstable.
- Consequences: Detrimental to the “software”; the mindset and psychological state of the masses.
- Population is not allowed to freely express their thoughts and emotions, suppressing their opinions. In such a society, if one were to voice out their opinions and express disapproval of certain laws and situations, they would probably be punished by the law.
- Creating depression and a sense of fear in the society.
- This is destructive because Man is the basis of a society; causes the society to function.
- Population would not feel anything for the country; no sense of belonging, nothing. Society as a human civilization would fail.
- Linked to the country’s economy and political scene; fail.
- Evidence: Autocracy countries such as Iran. Terrorism as an outlet. The mindset of the people are different (consequence) resulting in damaging impacts to the rest of the world. Eg. 911.

Liberty without Order (in extreme cases)
- Freedom to express without restriction or intervention from government and law.
- Consequence: Harmful to the “hardware” – tend towards the physical side.
- Conflicts in the society due to the difference in ideology of the people. They do not have to conform to any rules and regulations and are free to do what they want.
- Possible riots happening due to the difference in notions of freedom of different people. Could result in damaged property, people injured and killed.
- Chaos in the society. Destructive to the economy and political scene.
- Does not happen in real life. There would be too much disorder.

Conclusion

After evaluating the degree of destructiveness to the society by viewing the consequences from both sides, I concur with Roosevelt that order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. Both can destroy a society even though they are targeted at different aspects – mentally and physically – of the population living in the civilization as the “software” and “hardware” of man are equally important. In a nutshell, a symbiotic relationship exists between order and liberty, and both order and liberty need to work hand in hand with each other for a society to function successfully.