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

 

 

 

Civillisation as we know it is based on laws and ethics which restrict what we can do, without these we will destroy ourselves, complete freedom would ultimatly lead to our complete destruction.

 

 

 

I would rather be safe, for example in the UK we now have strict firearm laws, if someone over here gets shot its front page news, but in the US it happens everyday and its lucky if it makes the local papers, I would hate to live in a society with that much freedom.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Benjamin Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Benjamin Franklin

 

 

 

That's what I just said three posts up :P .

 

 

 

Civillisation as we know it is based on laws and ethics which restrict what we can do, without these we will destroy ourselves, complete freedom would ultimatly lead to our complete destruction.

 

 

 

The people who can't handle complete freedom would destroy themselves, and all the rational human beings (about 20 people I suppose) who don't need laws to stop them from doing wrong will live in a free society.

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.)

OMG Che Guevera's not dead! He's just reincarnated in the form of Barihawk!

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.

 

 

 

What you are discibing is anarchy whitch I don't see as a free state. To me freedom dose not mean it's lawless, it means you have rights even the right to make bad decisions as long as you don't affect any ones elce's right to freedom. Freedom never has to protect whats popular it's what's unpopular that it protects.

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.

 

 

 

My opinion is, I'm moving to Canada or Scandinavia (or Europe) as soon as I can.

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.)

OMG Che Guevera's not dead! He's just reincarnated in the form of Barihawk!

 

 

 

What are you talking about? I just said things that were in the Declaration of Independance.

I would personally rather freedom than safety. Not all together ovbiously. Frankly, what is the point of being safe if I cant be free? Its like, having a billion dollars, and not being able to spend any of it, I would rather have 100 dollars and be able to spend every cent of it on whatever I want.

 

 

 

Also, I think that connecting this to America is unfair, because what the government in protecting us from in some cases (in my opinion) are not real threats. I feel that if there is a bomb launched at my house, and the government forces me to live in alaska for a month because my house is beeing bombed, then that is justified and great, thank you. On the contrary I think that if the government thinks that my house might get bombed because his cousins brothers uncle's son (which is acually himself) told him that there is a slight chance that either my house, in the middle of the woods, or new york city is going to get bombed; well.. in that ridiculaus case, I would not be very happy to give up my freedom.

 

 

 

Its interesting, because I have been reading a bit of Geroge Orwell lately, and he is VERY concerned about this stuff, so it is giving me a wierd view on the whole situation on government lately.

 

That's what I just said three posts up :P .

 

 

 

 

yup sorry, i just read the complete freedom partand thought you quotet someone of the forum. :oops:

 

 

 

anyways, i have to asy. i just looove your quote :P

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.)

OMG Che Guevera's not dead! He's just reincarnated in the form of Barihawk!

 

 

 

What are you talking about? I just said things that were in the Declaration of Independance.

Err i knew that... :roll:

 

 

 

Safety or Freedom? I want the freedom to eat my cookie, but i want the safety of not being blown to bits while eating my cookie.

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

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Benjamin Franklin

To me, these quotes are completely different and can be interpreted in completely different ways.

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

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Benjamin Franklin

To me, these quotes are completely different and can be interpreted in completely different ways.

 

 

 

Well, he only said one of them, but every "quote" website you go to will have it slightly different.

 

 

 

I'm not seeing much difference between them though :? .

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

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Benjamin Franklin

To me, these quotes are completely different and can be interpreted in completely different ways.

 

 

 

Well, he only said one of them, but every "quote" website you go to will have it slightly different.

 

 

 

I'm not seeing much difference between them though :? .

Maybe I'm just being picky, but the phrase essential liberty to me makes a huge difference. As Barihawk said, he wouldn't mind giving up some rights that he wouldn't consider to be major, but he wouldn't give up rights that he believes to be essential. The first quote seems like a blanket statement that says no rights whatsoever, no matter what, and I find that to be unreasonable.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but the phrase essential liberty to me makes a huge difference. As Barihawk said, he wouldn't mind giving up some rights that he wouldn't consider to be major, but he wouldn't give up rights that he believes to be essential. The first quote seems like a blanket statement that says no rights whatsoever, no matter what, and I find that to be unreasonable.

 

 

 

Ahh, I got you. I didn't notice that, but that is because my views are that all liberties are essential.

As far as this issue goes. I think Ben Franklin said it best.

I believe safety and freedom can cohexist.

 

The necessity of weakening security in order to improve the freedoms, and vice versa, are, in my opinion, just a subterfuge to justify an authoritarian governament.

If you have complete freedom, you have anarchy.

 

 

 

If you have complete safety, you have fascism.

I do not want complete freedom, but I dont want complete saftey ethier.

 

 

 

The freedoms listed on the 1st Amendment is pefectly fine. I might want to add before you try to "outsmart me" is that you cant give false statements in a time of emercency, like yelling "FIRE!" when there isn't one. Thats listed in the Bill of Rights (and expample). Back on topic, the 1st Amendment gives the best freedoms we can get. But the in the US you cant really publish something that negativly affects the government really hard, then they arrest the editor and make a huge fuss.

 

 

 

Plus, you might know, the US is trying to/or already did, pass a law that listens to our very telephone call, instant message, e-mail, etc. For what? To promote our saftey and remove our freedom of privacy is what. The safety is to "catch terrorists" :roll:

Aww, I was so about to pull out the Franklin quote too.

 

My belief is that security is temporary and fluctuates. Liberty on the other hand isn't. Once you give up a personal freedom you don't get it back as easily as you gave it up. I doubt we'll get the freedoms we've given up under Bush's reign any time during our lifetime. I just can't stand how fear can lead people to give up their freedoms so easily.

I want to live in a theocracy where I give up all of my freedoms to guarantee that I go to Heaven just by being a citizen of my nation. I want to be forced to take communion by gunpoint just to guarantee St. Peter opens those gates for me. Ultimate safety.

You can't have freedom without safety.

 

No one is truly free to express themselves without some sense of security.

You can't have freedom without safety.

 

No one is truly free to express themselves without some sense of security.

 

 

 

Yep, there are people in supposedly modern countries like Turkey that openly criticize their government and still they have to go to jail for their totally rational beliefs. Doesn't really encourage other people to use their brain does it?

If you have complete freedom, you have anarchy.

 

 

 

If you have complete safety, you have fascism.

 

 

 

Well-put and true.

 

 

 

Anarchy is my ideal; however, I acknowledge that it is impossible in modern society, and thus economic and civil libertarianism (minus the huge defense obsession some libertarians have) is the best practical application of the ideal anarchy into society and government.

Anarchy is my ideal; however, I acknowledge that it is impossible in modern society, and thus economic and civil libertarianism (minus the huge defense obsession some libertarians have) is the best practical application of the ideal anarchy into society and government.

 

 

 

Almost agree with you, I am definently for economic and civil libertarianism, but I don't think anarchy is impossible. Once we have a completely libertarian form of government for a while, I think it would naturally progress to an anarchistic state.

 

 

 

I may also be one of those libertarians with a "huge defense obsession" :P

Freedom And safety r both important.but if i were to choose i would choose freedom!