Any system which fails to function with average human behavior factored in is doomed to fail as a governing system for humanity.Mr Scott said:
Freedom vs. Security (Which is more important)?
- Thread starter EXPLICITasian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Freedom. Without freedom, what would security even mean? What would you be defending with all that security? Tyranny?
There's no way I'm going to be able to say anything on the subject more effectively than Labyrinth already has, so just go read her posts again.
No kidding. What about my freedom to actually get paid for my work without the government stealing cash before I even see my paycheck? Somehow this one's come about even though the US constitution had language specifically barring the government from doing such nonsense.sneakypenguin said:
I agree that the terms need more definition to have a really meaningful discussion, the above is just a rant.
I'm a believer in free market Anarchism and I believe that is the perfect way to make sure that people have both freedom and security in equal measure. It gives everyone complete freedom and if they want security then they can have it for a price. If I really had to choose between freedom and security I would go for freedom, I would not live in a world where I could not speak freely
If something isn't for you (like Anarchy) you've no right to complain because you are within your rights to emigrate to any Democracy or Socialist society you wish. No-one has the right to complain about self-imposed suffering
What is the name of the most popular Anarchist society, I bet you don't know, do you? That's because there are no correct Anarchic societies 'cos no-one cooperates.
What is the name of the most popular Anarchist society, I bet you don't know, do you? That's because there are no correct Anarchic societies 'cos no-one cooperates.
Horribly simplistic viewpoint coming up, but I don't see ID cards, and tighter security and all sorts of new forms and checks etc... stopping someone blowing themselves up in a densely populated area if they want to.
I'm not saying fire all the guards, and disband the military, but I do feel terrorism is being used to remove rights and give more power to governments and away from the people.
I'm not saying fire all the guards, and disband the military, but I do feel terrorism is being used to remove rights and give more power to governments and away from the people.
I'm going to go out of my way here, to say that my answer to anyone who asks me that question in real life is "Fuck You!", wherein I storm off and have both in something called the real world.
As for having freedom but not security, look at the Resident Evil movies. You're a survivor, and you have plenty of freedom, but you're not secure against the zombies. Vice versa with security; if you stick with Umbrella, you have security, but no freedom.
As for having freedom but not security, look at the Resident Evil movies. You're a survivor, and you have plenty of freedom, but you're not secure against the zombies. Vice versa with security; if you stick with Umbrella, you have security, but no freedom.
The last 20 years? you mean since 1989? What exactly did Europe have to fight and die for in the past 20 years? NOTHING!Wyatt said:
The U.S. for the last 8 years has been breaking treaties including the nuclear anti-proliferation treaty, and has started 2 wars (which we can't finish) without the initial support of NATO. Why didn't we have the support of NATO? Not because they were cowering under the table, but because the evidence to INVADE another country wasn't solid enough to risk destabilizing the entire region, which we've done; and the worst part, is that they didn't even find evidence of the weapons they were looking for.
It's not Europe that has been hiding, It's the United States of America that's been the aggressor. It wasn't Afghanistan or Iraq that actually attacked us, it was 200 or so well-coordinated extremists. Every time a bomb misses it's target, or a civilian gets caught in cross-fire the U.S. creates more enemies. The total documented civilian deaths in Iraq as of today is minimally 90,000 each of them have family members, who might just consider our presence unwelcome after such an event.
You can't stop terrorism without controlling minds directly, there will always be dissonance within society and those who will express it violently, however; the more freedom we give up in fear to stop them, the more power we lend them over us.
i seem to recall alot of european nations being attacked by Islamic terrorists, now i might be crazy but it seems to me that forming NATO go begine with was in responce to a threat from the Warsaw pact (well not actualy called the warsaw pact yet but the same basic system of alliances that became the warsaw pact, ironicaly in responce to the formation of NATO), not an actual ATTACK from them mind you but rather just a threat, the terrorists on the other hand actualy ATTACK european nations and ........ nothing, much hand wringing and talking but almost no action, with again, the exception of a few like Britain that relize talking alone isnt enough..Do4600 said:
now as for the Middle east, it aint over yet and Iraq is (lord how i hate to say this, seriously) looking better and better. corse that doesnt mean it wont all go to shit in 20 minutes from now, and being an arab nation that is the likley outcome no matter WHAT action we take, but Dubya got one thing right in his long collection of cluster fuck's, its better to fight them THEIR than to fight them HERE. terrorists dont become well organized and well funded without host nations, like afganistian for one, and the answer to beating them isnt to set home in our own boarders and let them plot and scheme against us untill they pick the time to attack, the way to defend yourself is to go run them down, smoke them out, and kill them, and kill all those AROUND them that give them shelter and aid untill they die.
just like with Israel, you need to keep killing till the lives of their children mean more to them than the deaths of their enemys. i think that 50 plus years of terrorist attacks at europe and America have pretty well proven that talking doesnt work for shit, lets try killing for a while if for no other reason than a change of pace. there is allways a fine line between respect and fear, its clear our enemys dont respect us, so we can atleast make them fear us atleast untill we manage to kill them all or they become more fond of their childrens lives than their 'enemys' deaths.
in the cold hard light of simple truth id rather see American SOLDIERS dieing and 'innocent people' in OTHER nations paying the cost of this war than see american 'innocents' dieing here at home. they want a fight, they will continue to HAVE a fight, now the only question left too answer is who will do the dieing and in what place will the fighting take place, id rather it be American soldiers in other nations, than American civilians here at home. and who knows maybe among all the blood of the 'innocents' we kill their just might be a pint or two of one of those '200 well organized' enemy terrorists you spoke of. and maybe, just maybe those 'innocents' might come to relize that its not such a good idea to let Osama set up his training camps in their back yards, and its possable they might get the idea that helping to feed them and giving them shelter isnt such a great idea either. if not *shrug* they can die too. at this point im tired of Americans (and our allies, yes even the Euro mob) dieing with no responce or end in sight. if killing is in the works no matter what we do , than i say as an American we can do it better than anyone else if pushed too it.
sooner or later the 50 or so arabs left on the planet might stop from screaming DEATH TO AMERICA long enough to look around at their other 49 allies and relize that maybe its time to TALK and not kill. if not than we can simply finish them once and for all. call it genocide, call it racism, call me a monster, whatever. but when one side choose killing and death the only way to win that fight is to be sure you kill them first. we didnt ask for this fight, nothing America has done in her entire history was so bad that we diserved the 9/11 attacks, so the battle lines have been drawn for us, now either we win or we die. im all about the winning. we can figure out 'right and wrong' once the shooting stops.
I challenge you to name me a governing body that would give you your freedom back when you wanted it, after you gave it up. Giving up your freedom is giving up every right you have to do anything without being told. No government, not the U.S.A., not England, not France, nor China, would even think about giving something back.Kwil said:
Would there be some problems with safety? Yes, absolutely. If the government can't take care of total security now, and they can't, then they won't take care of it later, either. People like "Hell's Angels" don't do things because they don't think the government will stop them, they do things because they don't *care* if the government stops them or not.
You ever seen V for Vendetta? I'm not saying that's exactly how it would work, but the situation would be pretty similar if we put security over freedom.