Should the need of society be more important than individuals rights ?
The needs of society are more important, but who is qualified to determine what those needs are? How often do you hear politicians talking about what the American people want as if they knew exactly what that was? And isn't it convenient that the American people want what the party in power wants? One of the needs of society is that individual rights be protected against those who would use their own interpretation of society's needs to oppress others.
What is more important, the needs of the individual, or society?
Without the benefits of society, individualism does not exist. Traditional tribal societies such as the kind in which we lived for the first 45,000 years of our species were cooperative societies, not incidental affiliations of individual rational agents acting in their self-interests. Fierce rugged individualists either died quickly or conformed to the natural necessity of the society. Individualism is a byproduct of advanced surplus-producing society and neither can nor will occur under any other conditions. The lady that says it is like asking what is more important, food or water, is wrong. Water is more important; we will die without either but food occurs only because of water and therefore although both are essential, one is primary and the other is conditionally dependent. This is as simple as a first grade math equation: Individualism is a luxury entitlement provided by society and wholly dependant thereupon; society comes first and the quality of individualism is that which is the maximum society can provide; individualism that occurs at a net negative value to society is a math equation that produces a negative sum and in the real world, that translates to the disintegration of society and consequently, the discontinuation of individualism. American individualism is superstitious mythology; a self-contradictory, self-destructive and self-cancelling proposition.
How much economic freedom should society give to an individual to seek his or her own ends to the detriment...?
You clearly aren't paying attention: 1. Perhaps it was a typo, but you asked about freedom to act to the detriment of others. The first answer said no one should be able to do anything to the detriment of others. This is a perfectly reasonable position: you can do anything you want as long as it does not impact others detrimentally. (Of course, there is almost nothing that you do that does not impact others detrimentally, but we don't like to think about that.) http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/Indic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_... 2. This is not a question of economics but of philosophy and politics. It is a question of values - of individuals and societies. Some (very few) individuals believe that individual freedom is the single most important value. For a society to survive, survival of the society must be the primary goal. Individual freedom can be a secondary goal, but it does not have to be. 3. We in the West have grown up thinking that individual freedom is important, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuali... but there are many philosophical and ethical systems which argue that it isn't important at all. Certainly, there is no reason to believe that modern Westernized society is at all sustainable, and every reason to believe it is not, http://dieoff.org/page110.htm so I would not be surprised to find that in the decades ahead, thinking shifts, and subordinating the individual to the group (family, tribe, nation, specie, etc.) will become more the norm and less the exception.
Individuals who are socialized into masculine identities engage in more acts of violence...?
I'm glad you are grappling with an interesting question. Here are my thoughts: Is there evidence that 'Individuals who are socialized into masculine identities engage in more acts of violence'? This hypothesis would be very hard to test, and I doubt that there is any proper evidence for it in existence. (If I am wrong about this I would be grateful if you could provide a link that proves otherwise). If there is no evidence for the hypothesis, then there is no rationale for changing masculine identity. However, if we needed to change anything about images of men in the media etc it would be to help give them a greater sense of having a positive role in society, as nowadays it seems that men are often portrayed as stupid and weak (many ads and sitcoms), or bad and violent (many films). People even talk openly about how men are not needed in society at all except for their sperm. This is a pretty evil suggestion - verging on genocidal - and I think the lack of respect or positive roles in society for men leads many to say 'to hell with even trying', and end up ghettoising themselves in ultra macho roles e.g. football hooliganism or gangster rap. Looked at from this perspective, the solution is not to ban images of ganstas & thugs, but to stop all the bad-mouthing about how stupid and useless men are and start to portray men in a more postive and realistic light. To address issues raised in other answers: There is a proven link between testosterone and aggression in animals (research is mainly on mice) but not in humans. Also I agree that the question begs the question of violence from women, partly because in your question "more" is unclear because the comparison being made is nonspecific: "more" than women? or "more" than men who are not raised this way? There is a lot of research showing that in domestic and dating violence, men and women are violent at the same rate. If no weapon is used, women come off worse, but if a weapon is involved men are either equally likely or more likely to suffer greater injury. I hope you find these thoughts useful.
What is the function of personal space in society?
Lemon Tea has answered the first question rather nicely. My answer to the second question would be " not to appear threatening or imposing to others in any way. " I grew up in a large East Coast US city, where there is very little personal space, particularly in public situations, such as a parade or the subway @ 5:00 PM. My personal space is essentially zero. Moved out West & then noticed that folks stand quite a bit further away from each other here. I started deliberately standing further away from people just so that they would feel comfortable. I notice that my coworker from Lebanon stands close to people sometimes when he talks with them. Culture changes the social distance. Where does it come from? Familiarity (culture), fear (of other people getting too close physically) and unconsciousness. Most of the time - many people their whole life - this is an unexamined aspect of life; no concious thought being directed to what am I doing? why? does this make sense? etc. Peace, ;-)