Thread:Ragnarok6354/@comment-24187738-20150327154858

I have a question regarding values. Admittedly it's a question brought about by a whole spate of online discussion in my country lately- it's gotten so crazy I have to avoid Facebook now, so I've been thinking about finding other people to ask their opinion. (Since you always said you wanted to try migrating here, I believe you might be the one closest to having a stake in the issue too.)

Back story (optional): Recently with the death of my nation's founding father, there's been a whole swarm of eulogies and reviews on his life and what he did. The West paints him as a harsh authoritarian leader, controlling everything with a tight fist and crushing dissidents and political opponents with both detention-without-trial (stretching into years and decades) and lawsuits-till-bankruptcy. Meanwhile recently rebuttal posts has sprung up mainly along the same tone: that the stifling rules are only against uncivilized actions such as vandalism and that it is what has given us stability and safety. And this is what some people are defining as "true freedom", freedom to walk on the streets safe at night, freedom from random shootings, from racism and corruption and so on.

All in all, the question I really wanted to ask is, how would you define freedom? Could be political or unpolitical. And also, is it worthwhile to trade political and social freedoms for stability and economic success?

NOTE: This question is open to all you other people reading this too, if you're capable of providing an actual thought-out answer. I would like to gain as many insights as possible. 