Freedom vs. Security
- Thread starter ragin64
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Complete freedom for everyone is a lie.ragin64 said:
Boundaries of freedom will always overlap when there are at least two people involved.
Hell, I can't shoot fireballs. Is that total freedom?
There's no such thing as either.
I wouldn't believe anyone who told me they could make me totally secure, and I wouldn't believe anyone who told me they could make me totally free. These ideas, total security and total freedom are unreachable ideals, which, if sought after, only cause Dystopia.
I wouldn't believe anyone who told me they could make me totally secure, and I wouldn't believe anyone who told me they could make me totally free. These ideas, total security and total freedom are unreachable ideals, which, if sought after, only cause Dystopia.
I choose the freedom to be safe.
Otherwise known as the freedom to bear arms.
Then again, I'm Canadian, I'm already safe.
Otherwise known as the freedom to bear arms.
Then again, I'm Canadian, I'm already safe.
To quote one of the most memorable roles of a once great man, who is now mostly seen as a racist:
"THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES, BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!"
I know that that quote pertains more to fighting an oppressive monarchy, but I think it's still related, a little.
I choose potentially lethal freedom over oppressive security.
"THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES, BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!"
I know that that quote pertains more to fighting an oppressive monarchy, but I think it's still related, a little.
I choose potentially lethal freedom over oppressive security.
<quote= Benjamin Franklin> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Yeap, that's all I have to say.
Yeap, that's all I have to say.
Total freedom every time. I don't do things to avoid punishment. Things i really want 2 do. like murder and arson.
What would complete freedom be? It's really only possible for one omnipotent guy at the top. If everybody's completely free then I'm free to have a Rolex til the bigger guy next door likes it and takes it. Then while he's at it he's free to knock down the wall between our apartments and have mine too.
If forced into this false dichotomy, I'd choose freedom. Then again, the hospital I volunteer at just got shot up yesterday and boy would I have liked for that -not- to happen, and if that meant more checkpoints, I'd have to say, "So bet it."
Almost everyone in a first world country I've heard answer this chooses freedom in principle. Almost everyone I've heard answer a question like this it in a third world country said security.
Basically, it amounted to how scared people really were of being dragged into the streets and how hungry they were. Principles are very easy to abandon when danger goes from abstract to real. Everyone says they wouldn't give up their rights if there was a real cost to keeping them, but that is before they are tested. When things actually go bad, then you'll see who will compromise.
Almost everyone in a first world country I've heard answer this chooses freedom in principle. Almost everyone I've heard answer a question like this it in a third world country said security.
Basically, it amounted to how scared people really were of being dragged into the streets and how hungry they were. Principles are very easy to abandon when danger goes from abstract to real. Everyone says they wouldn't give up their rights if there was a real cost to keeping them, but that is before they are tested. When things actually go bad, then you'll see who will compromise.