“How much unity do a society need not to fall apart and how much diversity must it provide in order to secure freedom for its citizens? This has been the central question of political philosophy from the very beginning. As much freedom as possible and as much unity as necessary leads to a society which serves the human good.” Stephan Eisel, the fellow worker of Konrad Adenauer Foundation
The relationship between individual and society directly influences the relationship between individual freedom and society order. Upon the problems of individual versus community and personal freedom versus social order, the pioneer philosophers mainly think and answer it in tow basic ways. One part of philosophers and thinkers emphasize wholeness, inevitability and divinity and advocate that the whole is more important than the part; the society is more important than the individual. Another part of philosophers view the issue at opposite angle.
Why do individual and society, individual freedom and social order stay in opposition to each other? On the one hand, the reason is that any person has irrational component inside him; the rational component registers as being controlled and is inclined to be in order; the irrational component registers as being impulsive and is inclined to the diversity. One the other, the individual freedom requires the equality, but the maintenance of the social order would sacrifice some individuals’ freedom without a doubt. It seems to me that the equality among the persons refers to being equally protected by law; it is the equality upon the obligation and right. It is not the unconditional equality and freedom in nature.
In abstract term, the individual and the society are indispensable; the individual is a part of society, the society is made up by the individuals. The individual freedom cannot be protected without the social order; the social order must be ossified without the individual freedom, and the culmination of the ossifying is the death. Therefore, the order is the guarantee of the freedom; the freedom is the basis of the order. Without the order, there can be no freedom to speak of; if it is not for freedom, the value of the order would be incomplete.
The freedom spells slipping the leash, but the principle of equality upon the freedom makes the general restriction exist, so the freedom itself stands for the unity of opposites between restricted and unrestricted. The order is the kind condition of stability, consistency and predictability and has the inevitability characteristic. On the surface, the freedom seems like a kind of capricious, but it is essentially the rationality which is compatible with the inevitability. I think that the social order registers as a kind of inevitability; the folks living in the order are able to learn the inevitability and then arrange their own actions to make their freedom be in accord with the order. The individuals being controlled under the social order are still free, they are able to learn and use the social order to serve some other purposes; they maybe comply with it –shows the unity between the individual freedom and the social order; or violate it—shows the oppositeness between the individual freedom and the social order. Any social order has the spontaneously arising characteristic, but it cannot totally spontaneously grow and maintain. It requires the support of the public enforcement. Then the social order also has the manipulating characteristic. Therefore, when the individual freedom and the social order are opposite, it does not always register as the evil in theory; when the individual freedom and the social order are unity, it does not always register as the good in theory. When the society order extremely suppresses and roundly snuffs out the diversity, the individual freedom and the social order is difficulty to be unified, although they are unified forcibly, it is still not the theoretical good. In contrast, it is the greatest real evil.
Since the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, the individual freedom and the social order are renewedly balanced by the law. The constitution maintains the order of the society, at the same time, the Bill of Rights and civil liberties fundamentally gives the folks the freedom they should own. In the field of the law, I advocate that social order should be on first position, the individual freedom should be on second position; the law should secure the stability of society as much as possible with due consideration of the individual freedom. That the law secures the social order does not mean putting the individuals on the prospective and specific position (like playing chess) or requiring the individuals to attain a goal which is set by the country or the society; its purpose is to ensure the individual actions do not violate the basic condition which is in favor of the development of social order. The national benefits and social benefits which are secured by the law should be able to be reduced to the individual benefits. The individuals have the right to require the kind of the social order and then live in it. The individual freedom only can be restricted for the freedom. The national government and its staffs are restricted by the law as well. The official actions must be in accord with the law. There is no difference in essence between the freedom and the law. In contrast, the law is essential to the freedom.
Of course, the law puts restrictions on the individuals, so the law is opposite to the individual freedom at the specific time and in specific aspect. However, the law restricts another to handle the individual as he wishes. The law makes the individuals relief from the fear of being arbitrarily suppressed and infringed. It is indeed the only way to let the whole society obtain the freedom. I think that the punishment of the crime and the maintenance of the social order is a kind of automatism defense mechanism which is innate in the society. The law is just the tool of maintaining the social order before the individual freedom exists. But, after then, the role and meaning of the law is totally changed; the law is not only the tool anymore, but it also has the independent rational character. And the individual freedom solidifies inside it. Then, the tool of maintenance of society becomes the protector and the guarantee of the freedom.
The Civil liberty in People’s Republic of China becomes an issue since long time ago. The family planning policy is the most well-known issue in global society.
Focusing on Chinese Family Planning Policy (“also known as one-child policy, it officially restricts married, urban couples to having only one child, while allowing exemptions for several cases, including rural couples, ethnic minorities, and parents without any siblings themselves” Wikipedia), we see the national government seriously infringed on the human right. The reason of Chinese government’s implementing the policy is that they only focus on the economic analysis and never think of it in the aspect of human right and the rule of law and regard the restriction of the civil liberties as the serious problem. Innumerable anti-ruling of law and anti-human right incidences existed during the implement of the policy. It is obviously shows that “the society order extremely suppresses and roundly snuffs out the diversity” and the wrongdoing of the government arises the “real evil” policy. On the other hand, the law which is implemented for securing the society is trying to turn back to damage the society; if Chinese government does not stop the policy immediately, there will be the “population faulting” between the year 2025 and 2035. The exhaustion of human resource will directly influence the development of economic society.
Therefore, the wrongdoing from the evil policy or law will totally break the perfect balance between the individual freedom and the social order and finally prevent the general development of the society.