Hayek believes that freedom provides society with a sanctuary of diversity. The premise is that individual human abilities are limited and the external environment is constantly changing. Therefore, people have the freedom to choose the way of life that suits them. Because this provides a sufficiently large base of diversity, and ensures that humans have sufficient adaptability in the process of elimination. Durkheim further pointed out the relationship between the normativeness of the society and the innovation of the individual, that is, through the crime, the society is in a plastic state in the process of individual crime.
In the film, Frank and Roxy should be regarded as a minority in American society. They are not used to the mainstream current popular culture and social habits, but they choose to tolerate and remain silent because the cost of fleeing is too great. A series of opportunities gave the two the courage and ability to turn them into criminals, shaping the American audience on the American Star live broadcast.
In the days of Frank and Roxy, they had zero tolerance for dissidents, and even killed innocent people in order not to expose themselves. Calling these actions necessary freedoms is unacceptable to anyone. Tolerance is therefore brought to the fore. Only with a moderate tolerance of others can everyone's freedom be preserved to the greatest extent. But to what extent is it tolerated? It's not said in the movie, but life experience tells us what the law and customs tell us not to do. Doing this is intolerable. However, the limited judicial resources doomed that some deviant behaviors will not be punished, which conflicts with the principle of freedom of tolerance. Can we find a way to protect our freedom after moderate tolerance? Maybe a gun. In the film, the marksmanship of the retired veteran Frank really shocked me. However, isn't the proliferation of guns also one of the headaches of American society? Wouldn't it be all the more ironic to be violent in the name of protecting freedom.
Wouldn't there be no double-compliance method, which would not be the same as the Tathagata and not the minister? Probably not. Going back to Hayek and Durkheim, neither of them have come up with a viable solution to protect liberty (according to my narrow reading). Maybe freedom really is such a tragic thing that we long for it. But once we become the untamed minority, we have to accept the possibility of not being accepted by the environment. Accept the simple choice of being patient or being shaped. Frank's method is clearly not advocated by the director, and seeing how he died, while heroic, is also tragic. Maybe it’s good for a few. It’s good to talk to some of the same few, to maintain the pride of the few, and to be so proud of the past for a lifetime.
View more about God Bless America reviews
