>> Civilisation is the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety.
That's a pretty reductivist way to define civilisation...
From this definition; It sounds to me like there is a certain character/type of people who are redeemed as Civilized based on Govt definition. Thus justifies heavy control over society.
"As a liberal", wouldn't it be more favourable to design the system around liberty of choice for the individual rather than control of a central power?
It is deliberately reductive because I was hoping not to get into a debate about personal freedoms.
If you disagree, try telling the police that they have no right to infringe on your personal freedom when they stop you for drink-driving. Or theft. Or even jay-walking. To be in a society, any kind of society, involves giving up personal freedoms in exchange for something, usually safety or stability. We just have a different idea of what's an acceptable loss of personal freedom.
I agree that it'd be favourable to design the system about personal freedom, but that system comes with its own inefficiencies and disadvantages that by large my country deem unacceptable. Unfortunately, Singapore is still largely a pragmatic and conservative society that min-maxes for economic stability, and it'd be long before this changes.
>I would consider banning slavery as more civilized, but it is an expansion of civil liberties.
It's an expansion of civil liberties for one group (the enslaved), at the cost of limiting the civil liberties of another group (the former slave owners): you're preventing the slave owners from exercising their freedom to enslave people and force them to work.
>Same with having general freedom of expression. Any thug can ban "lies" he doesn't like.
Same here. Even a law that bans yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is infringing on the civil liberties of people to speak freely and cause chaos.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with these infringements of civil liberty. It's better for society to avoid needless chaos from people shouting "fire!" and to prevent people from being enslaved. But they are limiting absolute freedom.
That's a pretty reductivist way to define civilisation...
From this definition; It sounds to me like there is a certain character/type of people who are redeemed as Civilized based on Govt definition. Thus justifies heavy control over society.
"As a liberal", wouldn't it be more favourable to design the system around liberty of choice for the individual rather than control of a central power?