Exactly what is practical about carrying all that around in public? Or maybe you were going for sarcasm there. But no though they need to be balanced, although I lean towards freedom.BirdKiller said:
Freedom vs. Security (Which is more important)?
- Thread starter EXPLICITasian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In all honest I find the authority of a government to be an illusion entirely. Just as the authority of a 'leader' is. Anarchic by nature, it's true. Once you accept that the only authority some such thing has is one you give them, you can find any number of ways to break the system. "Security" is an illusive blanket just the same. It's like having a parental government saying "It's okay, little Joanne. Run along now, don't do anything I wouldn't want you to. I'll take care of everything else."
Basically this. And I figured someone would use that quote, which is okay, because it's a great quote from the original American pimp.black lincon said:
Funny how people say freedom FTW! and then want the government to take care of them with housing, healthcare, retirement, unequal taxation, ban most firearms, provide for my education, whatever.
I'm not so sure it's so much an illusion, as it is that people don't want to think for themselves, though you're right about having the authority we give them. A certain amount of "authority" in life is natural. It's how we learn the ways of life. All community driven animals have a hierarchy. But when a government encroaches on your daily life business and tries to monitor everything you do, that's stepping over the line.Labyrinth said:
I think our problem is that we (USA) live in a country where everyone wants something different. We have a common goal, more or less, but that goal is forever unreachable because of the infinate ways everyone wants to go about it.
funny how no one said security, i guess the escapist forums isn't exactly a hot spot for over-bearing mothers, those special types of democrats that beleive the gov't should ban all naughty actions on television, or any republicans leaning towards fascist persons
Can't we have both? They may be in some ways mutually exclusive, but dammit I can't choose!
Also, could you define what you mean by security? Do you mean security against them there terr-or-ists? Or bullys? Or the French? While one method of non-freedom impairing security may work for some things, it won't for others.
Also, could you define what you mean by security? Do you mean security against them there terr-or-ists? Or bullys? Or the French? While one method of non-freedom impairing security may work for some things, it won't for others.
It's ironic that the government seems hellbent on stopping the terrorists without realizing that they can't stop the terror. Fear can be produced by everyone, governments included, and the US government has done nothing BUT fearmonger by bringing up the "terrorist threat". The more people fear the terrorist, the more the terrorists win. And causing governments to deny their citizens their basic rights is definitely a "win" for the terrorists.
Also, I am Canadian and am not comfortable with the way the Harper government mimicked the Bush government as far as freedom infringement goes. That their security law was in effect for over two years and only caught one "suspect" only furthers my suspicions.
Also, I am Canadian and am not comfortable with the way the Harper government mimicked the Bush government as far as freedom infringement goes. That their security law was in effect for over two years and only caught one "suspect" only furthers my suspicions.
Any security, it's a general statement, it leaves room for more discussions, i just used terrorists as an example... extra security could also mean things like tougher gun laws, or more censorship.Spleeni said:
anarchists aren't satanic they just fail to see the flaws in anarchism. For example, who maintains the infrastructure without government? How do we pay for services without government back money? Go back to the barter system? We left the barter system in the dust because it didn't work very well, not because the government was evil.TMAN10112 said:
What he said, with some elaboration.black lincon said:
My right to say and do what I belive is right is paramount to me; entire parts of my life are based around that idea. If anyone tries to take that right away from me, or anyone I care about, I will fight them with every iota of strength I have in me, even if I'm the only one fighting.
Another thing I should ask; what sort of "saftey" are we talking about? How is the threat of getting dragged out of your house in the middle of the night any different if it's the guys who are supposed to be on your side doing it?
Which brings up another point; I've always thought of saftey in terms of what you can do, not in terms of restrictions. To me, saftey is the knowledge that no one is going to take me from the people I care about, and I'm willing to fight for that, tooth and nail.
Maybe that's the point ol' Benji was trying to make; if you want liberty, and you want saftey, you have to fight for both of them, and if you aren't willing to do that, than you deserve neither.
Mmm. I've veered off topic, haven't I? Thinking tends to do that to me...
Apologies, I rant. I'll try not to do it again, but I make no promises.
It always depends on what you mean by security and with freedom. The thing most Americans seem to mean with freedom is to be allowed to screw up your own life with no interference. My definition of freedom is not what you're allowed to do, but what you're able to do.
And as you can tell from just that sentence, both of those things can be expanded on for hours.
With security it's the same thing. Is it security if terrorists can't get you? Is it security if criminals can't get you? What about car accidents, what about you hurting yourself skydiving?
We could always restrict your freedom to go fishing because you might end up getting hurt if a fish bit you. In that case I'm sure most people agrees that we have restricted freedom unfairly for security.
But what if we stretch if a bit further, what about financial security? What about healthcare? Sure, you could argue that taxes restrict your freedom to spend your money as you please. I argue that those taxes allow you the freedom to walk the streets freely, or to take a bus to your destination. Being able to take that bus, that your tax money paid for, allows you freedom of movement over a much larger area. Now restricting your freedom to lose your money no longer provides you with an economic security (it pays for welfare and your pension) but it actually extends your freedom further.
If we try that logic on something else, let's say, airplane security. The more it increases the safer we are when we fly. The more we trust our security and thus (hypothetically) the more likely we are to fly, that's freedom right there, isn't it? We can fly almost anywhere in the world, because of the security.
Freedom and security is about so much more than restrictions and what you're allowed to do. It's about the mentality behind it, and it's about what you can, more than what you're allowed, to do. If you can't walk out on the street without getting shot you have neither security nor freedom, if you can you have both.
I don't think the question between freedom or security can be adequately answered, not without solid definitions of what they both are. I don't think one is preferable before the other, or that the absence of one is necessary for the existance of the other.
I think that you are only as free as you are safe, and that you are only as safe as you are free. I think that the ideal solution to the problem would give you both, that it's not a matter of compromise. This said I think that the patriot act, the ASBO and the Swedish FRA-law is attacking both. You're not safe because of the patriot act, you're not safe because you can easily get an ASBO (where the name alone screams dystopia) or where the army can read your every mail. You're not safe because of this, the enemy is just another one, and you're obviously not free, both out of fear of the enemies and your protector, and the fact that your overzealous protector may just chose to see you as the next potential threat.
How can it be trading freedom from safety if you just add another threat?
And as you can tell from just that sentence, both of those things can be expanded on for hours.
With security it's the same thing. Is it security if terrorists can't get you? Is it security if criminals can't get you? What about car accidents, what about you hurting yourself skydiving?
We could always restrict your freedom to go fishing because you might end up getting hurt if a fish bit you. In that case I'm sure most people agrees that we have restricted freedom unfairly for security.
But what if we stretch if a bit further, what about financial security? What about healthcare? Sure, you could argue that taxes restrict your freedom to spend your money as you please. I argue that those taxes allow you the freedom to walk the streets freely, or to take a bus to your destination. Being able to take that bus, that your tax money paid for, allows you freedom of movement over a much larger area. Now restricting your freedom to lose your money no longer provides you with an economic security (it pays for welfare and your pension) but it actually extends your freedom further.
If we try that logic on something else, let's say, airplane security. The more it increases the safer we are when we fly. The more we trust our security and thus (hypothetically) the more likely we are to fly, that's freedom right there, isn't it? We can fly almost anywhere in the world, because of the security.
Freedom and security is about so much more than restrictions and what you're allowed to do. It's about the mentality behind it, and it's about what you can, more than what you're allowed, to do. If you can't walk out on the street without getting shot you have neither security nor freedom, if you can you have both.
I don't think the question between freedom or security can be adequately answered, not without solid definitions of what they both are. I don't think one is preferable before the other, or that the absence of one is necessary for the existance of the other.
I think that you are only as free as you are safe, and that you are only as safe as you are free. I think that the ideal solution to the problem would give you both, that it's not a matter of compromise. This said I think that the patriot act, the ASBO and the Swedish FRA-law is attacking both. You're not safe because of the patriot act, you're not safe because you can easily get an ASBO (where the name alone screams dystopia) or where the army can read your every mail. You're not safe because of this, the enemy is just another one, and you're obviously not free, both out of fear of the enemies and your protector, and the fact that your overzealous protector may just chose to see you as the next potential threat.
How can it be trading freedom from safety if you just add another threat?
Give me Liberty or give me death.
-Patric Henry
Its amazing that this quote seems to have been lost so easily. Frankly I'm shocked that it was not in the first post responding to this thread. Unfortunately as America has grown and the world has changed people here seem to be complaisant with surrendering what they might consider minor rights in the name of preventing people from harming them. Now I will admit that to a point one must have structure. Allowing people to go on murder sprees or forgiving rape as a liberty are things that simply unacceptable. Still its shocking to find that more and more we have people who fail to understand the value of the liberties they have.
Things like freedom of speech, right to privacy and even due process are thrown under the bus as the words of people like Orwell and Azimov take on a rather frightening truth. What is perhaps even more frightening is the fact that the same people who call for this change are often those who savagely defend things like the right to carry fire arms. At first the defense of this right while we reject others seems rather counter intuitive until we realize that both concerns seem to point to people who simply want to feel protected on every front. Now in truth we as humans all feel this need so its hard to really write them off for it. At the same time it comes down to it people need to remember that its a cost/benefit ratio. People don't ask themselves if the rights they are giving up are ones they would be willing to live without. Or perhaps they do. It is possible that many people simply feel that having people looking over their sholders is a small price to pay for those times when the people doing the looking actually stop an attack that may or may not harm them. This is an understandable stance but not one I am personally inclined to agree with.
Much has changed since the time of Patric Henry. We have access to freedoms and resources far beyond anything they could dream of. People can travel to any part of the world in less than a day if they need to, and information can be transmitted anywhere within moments. This opens up dangers that could not have been foreseen but the truths that were held as self evident then are now, at least in my opinion, still as strong as the day they were first discussed by the founding fathers and always have been.
-Patric Henry
Its amazing that this quote seems to have been lost so easily. Frankly I'm shocked that it was not in the first post responding to this thread. Unfortunately as America has grown and the world has changed people here seem to be complaisant with surrendering what they might consider minor rights in the name of preventing people from harming them. Now I will admit that to a point one must have structure. Allowing people to go on murder sprees or forgiving rape as a liberty are things that simply unacceptable. Still its shocking to find that more and more we have people who fail to understand the value of the liberties they have.
Things like freedom of speech, right to privacy and even due process are thrown under the bus as the words of people like Orwell and Azimov take on a rather frightening truth. What is perhaps even more frightening is the fact that the same people who call for this change are often those who savagely defend things like the right to carry fire arms. At first the defense of this right while we reject others seems rather counter intuitive until we realize that both concerns seem to point to people who simply want to feel protected on every front. Now in truth we as humans all feel this need so its hard to really write them off for it. At the same time it comes down to it people need to remember that its a cost/benefit ratio. People don't ask themselves if the rights they are giving up are ones they would be willing to live without. Or perhaps they do. It is possible that many people simply feel that having people looking over their sholders is a small price to pay for those times when the people doing the looking actually stop an attack that may or may not harm them. This is an understandable stance but not one I am personally inclined to agree with.
Much has changed since the time of Patric Henry. We have access to freedoms and resources far beyond anything they could dream of. People can travel to any part of the world in less than a day if they need to, and information can be transmitted anywhere within moments. This opens up dangers that could not have been foreseen but the truths that were held as self evident then are now, at least in my opinion, still as strong as the day they were first discussed by the founding fathers and always have been.