Freedom vs. Security (Which is more important)?

Recommended Videos

Spacelord

New member
May 7, 2008
1,811
0
0
Labyrinth said:
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."
I completely agree. The only thing airport security provides is merely the illusion of safety. This dawned on me when I was at an iron age re-enactment park and this guy made a razor sharp bone spear tip. If you REALLY want to bring a weapon like that into a plane, no amount of security checks can stop you.

Actually, most recently a Dutch reporter shot footage of him sneaking past military airport security using only a fake ID to go out and touch our queen's private jet. Needless to say, a hilarious riot ensued and the official airport security director got a LOT of flak for it.

Many lolz were had, but it does prove what you're saying: anyone courageous or insane enough to just try and subvert government institutions will probably succeed.
 

meece

New member
Apr 15, 2008
239
0
0
Security is the right to not worry about being hit by a drunk driver,
Being run over by a driver doing 100mph in a city street
and similiar kinds of things like daylight robbery etc.

At lot of people forget when "security" breaks down you get things like what's listed above. The security we have now isn't perfect but it's better than it could be.

Security gives you the *right* to have freedom, to go out each day to work, earn a wage, come home and eat your dinner, buy and play games; whatever. You can because of the law and those who enforce it protect you.

But it's probably worth bearing in mind security can be taken too far, ID cards aren't really going to help protect people, censorship isn't likely to protect people and those kinds of things. Relevent security is desirable - but excessive population control measures generally aren't.
 

ygetoff

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,019
0
0
BrynThomas said:
"Yet I would gladly eat a flag myself, had I not used my intestine as a rope to hoist a flag made of my own skin. If it would protect the freedom of the proud people who salute that flag! Freedom such as polygamy."

Edit: Someone needs to eat a flag in protest of the patriotic act.
Go Futurama!

sneakypenguin 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'd say that providing for education is different then preventing me from taking toothpaste on a plane. Or monitoring what I say in my phone calls. Or having a completely arbitrary list of people who are not allowed to use planes as a means of transportation.
 

ygetoff

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,019
0
0
meece said:
Security is the right to not worry about being hit by a drunk driver,
Being run over by a driver doing 100mph in a city street
and similiar kinds of things like daylight robbery etc.

At lot of people forget when "security" breaks down you get things like what's listed above. The security we have now isn't perfect but it's better than it could be.

Security gives you the *right* to have freedom, to go out each day to work, earn a wage, come home and eat your dinner, buy and play games; whatever. You can because of the law and those who enforce it protect you.

But it's probably worth bearing in mind security can be taken too far, ID cards aren't really going to help protect people, censorship isn't likely to protect people and those kinds of things. Relevent security is desirable - but excessive population control measures generally aren't.
The dominant theory in this case is that people give up some of their freedoms in order for them and others to enjoy security and protect their rights, i.e. life, liberty, property, and if the government does NOT honor that "contract" then the people have the right to revolt. Go John Locke!
 

HuCast

New member
Aug 18, 2006
180
0
0
Wyatt said:
Do4600 said:
The last 20 years? you mean since 1989? What exactly did Europe have to fight and die for in the past 20 years? NOTHING!

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..

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.
Im european and really glad that neither me, my family or my country were ever "attaked" by so called islamic terrorists...I wonder why since they are out to destroy the free world ;)
 

luckshot

New member
Jul 18, 2008
426
0
0
you cant have security without freedom, take away freedom and whoever is securing you could decide to change everything and thus the cost of security goes up
 

ygetoff

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,019
0
0
Wyatt said:
Do4600 said:
The last 20 years? you mean since 1989? What exactly did Europe have to fight and die for in the past 20 years? NOTHING!

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..

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.
So you're saying that we should be like them, killing innocents until they fear us? How is that a deterrent? Once they fear us, (and that could take a while) we would leave, and then they just rebuild and attack with even more hate. The main thing that separates the rest of the world from the terrorists is that WE HAVE RULES. We have rules NOT to commit unspeakable atrocities such as what you suggest. If we decide to kill them all, like you say, what would make us better? They kill the innocent for their cause, so we have to kill theirs? How is that effective? There will ALWAYS be terrorists in some form. Not only your idea very very very racist, but it is ill-thought out, nearly impossible to carry out, and will have no effect. What does a terrorist care if somewhere, the U.S. is systematically eliminating other muslims? It's only more reason to hate us and get revenge. Never mind that you, for some reason, consider soldiers to be some lower class of human life that is created specifically to die. It is this kind of thinking that will be the end of the human race.
 

cuddly_tomato

New member
Nov 12, 2008
3,404
0
0
Wyatt said:
the problems with society's more worried about their 'security' than anything else are obvious by simply looking at what Europe has become in the last 60 and especialy the last 20 or so years. obsession with their 'security' has pretty clearly taken the form of cowering in their little nations clinging to past glorys and being content to be laughed at and scorned by the rest of the world as long as they are 'safe'. except Britian of course, shes still a high class old ***** when she needs to be.
Are you kidding me?

You never heard of "the sick man of Europe"? That is the UK.

Europe has freedoms and liberties that go far beyond those of the USA and UK, and the UK has become extremely authoritarian and oppressive as far as democracies go.

Laughed at? Scorned? You really need to stop watching Fox news because every single thing on that channel is bollocks.
 

Ace of Spades

New member
Jul 12, 2008
3,303
0
0
"If you sacrifice a little liberty for a little safety, you deserve neither liberty nor safety"
I'm sure I paraphrased a bit, but I agree with the Ben Franklin quote.
 

DarkBlood626

New member
Nov 9, 2008
142
0
0
Every one is yammering about rights and freedom
No one has rights we have privileges and if it suits the government they will take them away rights arent rights if they can be taken away look at the second amendment that what its for so people can rebel against the government BUT if you dont believe me I have an assignment for u go to Wikipedia type in Japanese Americans 1942 and you will learn all about your precious fucking rights and the bill of privileges

Just look at this http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM ((HR 1955)) home grown terrorism act ((this scares me really))
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
17,491
10,275
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
You know, there is a very basic and egregious error being made along this entire argument: The assumption that the "government" is some faceless, impassive monolith that acts entirely under one impetus.

Governments are not hive-minds. Governments are not the Borg. Governments are made of people, just like you and me, who have deliberately sought out positions of power over their fellow citizens. Now, perhaps it's the distrustful, misanthropic cynic in me, but if someone deliberately seeks to have power over me, I want to know why, and I want to always be sure that they are not a danger to me. Freedoms, such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom to congregate help me ensure that these politicians- these people who are seeking power- do not use their power to harm me without good reason.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing any terrorist could do to me that can match what a government can. A terrorist might kill or maim me, sure, but it's very unlikely that they can simply make me "disappear" in the middle of the night, spiriting me off to a secret base for years of torture and mistreatment because I might be a terrorist, or I said the wrong thing too close to an eavesdropping microphone, or simply because some agent of the government doesn't like my face. These things governments can do, and have done, many times throughout history. And yet every last one of them claimed it was for "security".

In a nutshell: STOP TRUSTING YOUR GOVERNMENT. It is a necessary evil, a way to get by until we humans figure out how to get along with each other better. Governments are made of people who want to tell you what to do. ("Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton) Freedom is a window over these people to let you keep track of what they're up to, and ensure that any security they provide is meant to protect you from harm- and not to protect their power from you.
 

Hallow'sEve

New member
Sep 4, 2008
923
0
0
If you give up your freedoms to the governemnt to protect you from terrorists, what's to stop the government from becomming terrorists?
 

corporate_gamer

New member
Apr 17, 2008
515
0
0
Freedom. Security is an illusion in any dictatorship or such like state. As you lose you freedoms, you lose your security from the state. Which has been proven time and time again to be much more dangerous to its people than any outside force.

Consider Iran or North Korea both with limited freedoms and extremely strong police forces and powerful security agency. And i would guess the majority of the population in these countries view themselves far less secure than American or British citizens.
 

zacaron

New member
Apr 7, 2008
1,179
0
0
Im siding with freedom on this one because if we didnt opress the foren people they might not have become terorists in the first place.