Thread: "Freedom from" or "Freedom to"?

I'm not sure if there's a dichotomy.

My picture of an ideal society is that of post scarcity, where everything you require within reason is provided. In such a society I suppose ownership wouldn't have much meaning. There would be no need for a government with official ownership to exist either; I suppose this is kind of close to the final version of communism Marx envisaged.

In such a situation you would be free from responsibilities (which essentially means labour) but also free to do as you please.

Very well, but what about the judicial system? Not just matters such as crime or any general action that would be considered damaging to society or the economy. Without getting into flaws in Marxism, any government is meant to embody an entity that regulates/controls a country in terms of politics. I mean, we don't really want anarchy or nihilism all over the place.

And if the goal of a society is the pursuit of happiness, and potentially economic growth, I would imagine having a system in which some sort of eusocial behaviour is encouraged/enforced in order to make sure that the highest overall amount of happiness can be achieved.

Humans are hedonistic creatures ultimately and will never function like a beehive or an ant colony. For a society to be sustainable, would you not need some sort of hierarchy of control? (especially if your name is Thomas Hobbes)