Freedom or Safety, What Would You Choose?

[norskdeutschami]

Would you rather trade in your freedom for security, or take your risks and be free?

[Sciz]

Always freedom (liberty really). If I am free, then, even under trying circumstances, I am able to, at the last, provide my own security. If I choose security over freedom, I may be secure for a while, but if that security fails, I am still not free to provide my own.

As a libertarian, I think this sums it up for me.

The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. . .it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated.

I'm sure someone will quote Jefferson as well.

[Lusitano]

Those who abandon their freedom in order to find security end up losing both.

[Dutch Dennis]

Freedom without a doubt.

What kind of life could one lead if one were not free to live it?

[Neophyte]

The freedom versus security question is certainly interesting but also misleading. I do not believe that the measures that are being discussed now, as a means to fight terrorism etc., really increases our security in any material way. They serve more as a pacifier for the common man, being under constant surveillance he feels more secure.

Just look at the USA: there has been no shortage of "security enhancing" initiatives since 9/11, but still people are able to pass across its border with Mexico at will and live illegally for years without being caught. What, exactly, has all the added airport and port security given them? Not much.

[Sciz]

The freedom versus security question is certainly interesting but also misleading. I do not believe that the measures that are being discussed now, as a means to fight terrorism etc., really increases our security in any material way. They serve more as a pacifier for the common man, being under constant surveillance he feels more secure.

Just look at the USA: there has been no shortage of "security enhancing" initiatives since 9/11, but still people are able to pass across its border with Mexico at will and live illegally for years without being caught. What, exactly, has all the added airport and port security given them? Not much.

Agreed, it is a little misleading, but interesting. It's a question more people should think deeply about before they just sign over their rights.

The immigration issue, at least in the States, is nothing more than an election season debate, just like gay marriage and flag burning. They know the common man cares about such things and so, even if they themselves don't, they know that bringing those issues to the fore will help them get the vote.

How can there be port security when the management of those ports is being sold to companies that are owned and run by foriegn powers?

Airport security hasn't given the common man much, I agree, but I think those in power get alot for their trouble. Think of it not in terms of your security, but of their excessive grab for ever more control. The problem is that we give them that control over our lives, and once it's gone, it very rarely comes back to us until extreme measures are taken. Not advocating violence, just stating a fact.

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.

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.

[Nachtengel]

Every day the federal government as well as state and local governments pass laws to make us a safer society. As they make society safer they are slowly chewing away at our rights, liberties, and our personal freedoms. Where is the balance? Is a safe nerf ball society worth giving up our freedoms for. At what point do we tell the government that we would rather die than to become mindless government slaves? Where is the line between where our right to choose is more important than the government's right to impose their standards on us. Even if it's for our own good?

We now have law regulating everything. We are forced to wear seat belts. We have to wear motorcycle helmets. Kids have to ride in the back seat. Smokers can't even smoke outside. We can't smoke a joint in the privacy of our own homes. Kids are expelled from schools for possession of nonprescription drugs. The government wants to regulate abortion, religion, sex, child discipline, marriage, and free speech. They want to control what you can post on the web, what your kids wear to school, where you can walk across the street, what you can watch in titty bars, what you can say at the office, where you can pray, where you can get high, who you have sex with, what kind of sex you have, what jokes you can tell, and when you can spank your children.

Continued:
http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/safety.htm

So here's the thought-provoking question: what would you choose, a free state with the risks involved, or a safe state with less freedoms? And no, you can't have both, it's a hypothetical question.

[Patrioten]

I would question the idea that we are living in a safe society, in my opinion it is neither safe nor free, but in theory I would take the safe society over the free society since I would think that the safe society would be home to less of the societal ills and degeneration that are present in today's society since it would tend towards stricter regulation of our behaviour in general. In the real world, in any society, freedom and safety must go hand in hand, and freedom must always be used within the context and framework of tradition for it to be a useful and positive force in society rather than a destructive one. Freedom and responsibility is the conservative alternative to the liberals' freedom from responsibility.

[Ossi]

Most people can't handle freedom. I'm against allowing all sort of garbage for the sake of the philosophy of freedom. No to junkies, no to titty bars, no to whores, no to pornography and other decadent crap. They're not mandatory parts of lives. They're no necessities.

[Patrioten]

Most people can't handle freedom. I'm against allowing all sort of garbage for the sake of the philosophy of freedom. No to junkies, no to titty bars, no to whores, no to pornography and other decadent crap. They're not mandatory parts of lives. They're no necessities.

Decent, hard working citizens don't need the freedoms that our societies allow today, nor do they want them. We are in fact sanctioning the 'vices of choice' for a minority of the population, whose vices and behaviour affect the living conditions for everyone living in our societies in a negative way. The needs and desires of minorities and deviants are put before those of the people.