Same as proposition 95. 'Justifies constraints' for specific proportionate purposes is trivially true (traffic laws). But as general principle that stability overrides liberty, it is the classic authoritarian justification for suppressing dissent, imposing conformity, restricting civil rights.
Limited constraints — such as laws against harm — are necessary for orderly society. Without some restrictions, stability cannot be maintained. The key issue is proportionality, not the existence of constraints.
Social stability can justify some constraints on freedom, but only within strict boundaries. Stability is a means, not the whole goal — does not affirm social stability justifies constraints broadly.
The absolute exercise of personal freedom can, in certain contexts, infringe upon the safety and rights of others, leading to a state of chaos that ultimately destroys freedom for everyone. A stable social order is the prerequisite for the meaningful exercise of liberty, as it provides the security and predictable environment necessary for long-term planning…
Some constraints on freedom are justified to prevent violence, fraud, coercion, public health threats, and breakdown of basic order. Social stability is a legitimate public good. The constraints must be narrow and rights-respecting, but the proposition says 'constraints,' not unlimited control.
Maintaining social stability and moral order — including protecting children from sexual exploitation, enforcing immigration law, and restoring family structure — justifies limits on individual license. FCN is not libertarian; it believes strong moral order is necessary for freedom. Freedom without moral constraints leads to the social disorder and family breakdown they seek to address.
Does maintaining social stability justify constraints on personal freedom?
2 NO (Claude, Perplexity), 3 YES (Copilot, Gemini, ChatGPT). Claude NO: as a general principle that stability overrides liberty, this is the classic authoritarian justification for suppressing dissent; trivially true in narrow cases (traffic laws) but dangerous as a general rule. Copilot, Gemini, ChatGPT YES: limited constraints necessary for order; the question asks about justification, not unlimited power.
The AI split reflects different readings of the proposition. The YES systems read it as asking whether any constraint is justified for social stability (trivially yes); the NO systems read it as asking whether stability can generally override liberty (concerning). FCN YES — strong moral order justifying limits on license is precisely what FCN seeks to restore.
Q95 and Q110 are paired (subordinate liberty to harmony/order). Q95 is unanimous NO; Q110 splits 3-2. The difference is in framing: 'justifies constraints' (Q110) vs. 'justifies subordinating individual liberty' (Q95). The word 'subordinating' may be doing more work than the substantive position.
Is there a version of the 'stability justifies constraints' argument that doesn't eventually justify suppression of political dissent? Or is the concern that any such principle will be interpreted to expand indefinitely?