Well recently I have been thinking, what is more important to me, to live in a free society or to live in safe society. Not that I'm saying that a free society isn't safe or vise versa, but it seems today that the american government is walking over our civil liberties in the name of a safer country.

 

 

 

I know safety is very important but how far do you go for it, do you ban guns, do you ban fatty foods, do you ban all private cars, do you ban privacy? I mean guns are no good for any thing but killing people right. Thousands of people die from heart disease every year which can be linked directly to fatty foods, and thousands of people also die in car crashes, and I mean if you'r not doing any thing wrong you have nothing to hide right? Exept we need cars to get around. We seem to like our fatty foods, and we love our privacy, and if we ban all guns exept for the police then the only people with guns besides them will be the bad guys right. Also if we do give up our guns then whats stoping the goverment from forcing us to do things there way I mean they would have all the guns there would be no one to stand up to them.

 

 

 

Personaly. as you can probibly see, I am in the 'give me liberty or give me death' group. I say if we let the government have even the smallest of our rights then the government will take all of our rights.

 

 

 

I want to hear what you have to say on this.

I say if we let the government have even the smallest of our rights then the government will take all of our rights.

 

 

 

I want to hear what you have to say on this.

 

 

 

I have to say that that is a very ignorant viewpoint.

How so?

Because a government is generally composed of representatives elected by the people; it is not in their interest to take away all freedoms because if they start doing things that people don't like they won't get elected again. What's more there is nothing to suggest that what you said will ever happen, whereas there are centuries of history to suggest that it won't.

It is in there interest to take our freedoms so that they can become more powerfull. They wouldn't take them out right they get us to let go of them, they would scare us into leting go of what we see as small things intill we have few freedoms left, and by then they have all the power.

And remember this is just my take on it.

It is in there interest to take our freedoms so that they can become more powerfull. They wouldn't take them out right they get us to let go of them, they would scare us into leting go of what we see as small things intill we have few freedoms left, and by then they have all the power.

 

 

 

You must be one of the few people here to wake upto this well done.

 

 

 

there are 3 things you need to controll a population.

 

 

 

 

 

Fear, Censorship, Survalance.

 

 

 

If you can give people a reason for fear (terrorism) then give them safty (war with iraq, terror laws) then they will rally behind you everytime.

 

 

 

9/11 was the best thing that could happen for bush!

 

 

 

The war in iraq is hevily censored the media go were the u.s. department of defense lets them go.

I think that in some cases there is a trade-off between liberty and safety.

 

 

 

However, I think that currently the governments of the world are over-representing the threat that terrorists pose (intentionally or unintentionally), and using this in order to limit more liberties than are necessary.

dusqi what case would there be a trade-off for you?

Any (republic/democratic) government is a trade off between the people's rights and their safety. It's part of living in any nation. Anarchy is very dangerous, so people give up certain freedoms in order to live a more secure life.

 

 

 

Personally, I think that the US has a pretty good balance, mainly thanks to federalism. I know some of you would disagree, but for daily life, I've got plenty of liberty. Although I can say that I wouldn't want to give up much more of my freedom for more security, even if I had the option.

I don't disagree with most of what you said. We do have a very good balance right now but I think we are on the brink of losing alot. Btw I'm talking democracy not anarchy.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

 

-Thomas Jefferson

Hades, no need to double post. Just edit your last post if you want to say something else.

Ok will do next time.

The more freedom people have the less safe the society becomes, the more safety people have the less free the society becomes.

 

 

 

I prefer the latter option personally :-k

I could live in a feudal society because I'm not really concerned with the "freedom" of any government. As I repeatedly stated countries like those are really rare, such as the nordic countries.

 

 

 

I'd have to disagree with politicians being happy puppets of the people; They aren't. Many politicians will do everything to further their own cause and increase their own power on the expense of civil liberties and human rights. These days, you could be a totally normal guy from any country, and the CIA can arrest you for 5 years with no trial and you don't have a right to ask why you were taken away.

 

 

 

Or, what about the guy who was killed shortly after the London terrorist attack several years ago? He was just an ordinary brazilian engineer going to work, he was shot down. The UK just apologised; That's not enough. They should seriously revamp their system to SERVE the people rather than take their lives and freedoms away.

Freedom, in general.

Because a government is generally composed of representatives elected by the people; it is not in their interest to take away all freedoms because if they start doing things that people don't like they won't get elected again. What's more there is nothing to suggest that what you said will ever happen, whereas there are centuries of history to suggest that it won't.

 

 

 

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. 17 million votes.

 

 

 

IMHO, saying that there's "nothing" that would suggest a democratic society can't manage to elect an oppressive regime with no regard for civil liberties is forgetting an extremely important lesson history has to teach. In the right political climate, voters will begin to sell their freedom for what they percieve as safety. It has happened before, and it can definitely happen again. Maybe not in a western nation today, but who knows what might occur in the next 50 years? Very few legislations that encroach civil liberties are limited in time, and while it's perfectly possible they'll be used in an "appropriate" manner for, say, the first two decades, there's no telling how they might be abused later.

I want a fair tradeoff. As long as my inalienable human rights are met (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), I am fine with government intrusion for mine and other's safety.

 

 

 

If it violates any of those, then it's time for revolution.

 

 

 

The government has not done any of those since the Civil War, so I am fine at the moment.

 

 

 

(The Patriot Act only affects people who make calls to known terrorists, so I have nothing to worry about it. I am pretty sure nobody in my family, friends, or faculty is a terrorist.)

Free society. Safety generally means more rules, which means less freedom. But only freedom if I could trust the people around me not to do stupid things, like put fireworks in traffic cones, or set fire to books.

I want a fair tradeoff. As long as my inalienable human rights are met (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), I am fine with government intrusion for mine and other's safety.

 

 

 

If it violates any of those, then it's time for revolution.

 

 

 

The government has not done any of those since the Civil War, so I am fine at the moment.

 

 

 

(The Patriot Act only affects people who make calls to known terrorists, so I have nothing to worry about it. I am pretty sure nobody in my family, friends, or faculty is a terrorist.)

 

 

 

Agreed, I believe that some "liberties" maybe should be sacrificed in the name of safety, but I would always want my essential liberties defended.

I actually prefer safety, but I like privacy aswell. I don't think that people who are generally good deserve to have their privacy taken away, even those who have been to jail for something that isn't that heinous.

I too want a good ballance. As long as I do have rights that are within reason (I.E the right to kill someone without punishment or to destroy another's property isn't needed) i'm fine.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

 

 

 

That pretty much sums up my viewpoint. I am for complete freedom.

 

 

 

Haven't had a good political discussion in a while, lets see if I'm up for it. :D

I dont know. A balance would be nice, but if I had to pick one it'd be safety. What good is freedom if you can't use it for fear of someone stabbing you in the back.