Freedom Vs Security.

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Balance is the key to life.

 

[CartesianFart]

But it surely won't be boring.

I dont know how old you are,but rest assure that when you grow old.The opinion will change based on the fact that the 'boring' things in life will be substantially favorable.Anarchy is an idea for impassionist youth with no understanding of the concept of 'Social Contract'.

In a world of chaos[anarchy] how will you suppose that you can survive to an old age?Unless you value your own life as absurd.

 

[MobBoss]

I said 50-50...check out my sig.

 

[Panzeh]

I dont know how old you are,but rest assure that when you grow old.The opinion will change based on the fact that the 'boring' things in life will be substantially favorable.Anarchy is an idea for impassionist youth with no understanding of the concept of 'Social Contract'.

In a world of chaos[anarchy] how will you suppose that you can survive to an old age?Unless you value your own life as absurd.

The social contract was invented by apologists for tyrants. I never signed any contract, but somehow it was signed for me by my being born here. Do I really have a choice where i'm born? Your concept of life is life as a grind, where you work day after day for a paycheck to waste on something you don't really need. I suppose in my concept of the world life would be short, but do you want to live 70 years of grind or 30 years of freedom?

The social contract makes sense if all we want to do is be productive. However, is everyone's purpose in life productivity?

 

[CartesianFart]

The social contract was invented by apologists for tyrants.

Not neccesarily so.The theory of the social contract applied to all different theory of government.Not absolute monarchy.

I never signed any contract, but somehow it was signed for me by my being born here. Do I really have a choice where i'm born? Your concept of life is life as a grind, where you work day after day for a paycheck to waste on something you don't really need.

I feel you on this,and most worker bees as well.This is ongoing for along time[if you think that history is cyclical,not progressive],but anarchy isnt a long term solution. Most society that is formed in the beginning,consist of having the majority of the 'people' having no participation or say in the formation of their government.The rest of the future generation is merely inherited of what their fathers invented.

I suppose in my concept of the world life would be short, but do you want to live 70 years of grind or 30 years of freedom?

It seems to be a spell that you are sufferin.This pessimism is the root of your anarchism.Kinda sounds like me awhile back.

The social contract makes sense if all we want to do is be productive. However, is everyone's purpose in life productivity?

Untill the age of robotics,we have to have worker bees do it,or we could never be here writing to one another.

 

[IglooDame]

I think this question asks in terms of society, not individuals. So a society with little security wouldn't result in automatic death, rather, the need to carry around automatic weapons and grenades 24/7

Really? Okay, can I change my vote from 50-50 to freedom?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I think you can determine my vote by taking a look at my sig.

 

[BCLG100]

50-50, like narz said whats the point in beeing free if your dead.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I went with freedom. Because the moment you exercise freedom in a police state, you no longer have security anyway.

Exactly.


Anyway, it doesn't have to be a case of 'freedom vs secruity', you can still have a police force and an army in a 'free' society, just as long as individual rights are resepcted and people are not spyed on and left to make their own descions when it comes to their personal lifes.

Freeom and Secruity come into conflict when states start to take measures to reduce people's civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism or whatever.

It is possiable to have a secruity force without monitoring citizens every move!

 

[EdwardTking]

To quote ben franklin:

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

I agree with this statement, although
not otherwise with Benjamin Franklin.

 

[Shaihulud]

Whenever there is a poll with a 50-50 option, I will always assume that the other 2 options are on the extreme opposite pole. Absolute anarchy or an absolute benevolent dictatorship, no thanks I choose the 50-50.

 

[sayhey]

Freedom of course. Read 1984

 

[nonconformist]

Freedom all the way.

In other words, I'm a liberal

 

[Irish Caesar]

After being thouroughly molested at the Orlando Airport last summer, a friend of mine said, "I'd rather have terrorists on the plane than deal with this!"

I think increased "security" does not truly make us more secure at all, and personally, I'd rather have my freedom.

In other words, I'm a true conservative

 

[storealex]

I think we should stop discussing politics, because Bush is smarter than us, so he will make the right decisions.

 

[Richard Cribb]

In other words, I'm a true conservative

And exactly what would that be?
My priorities:
1. Freedom
2. Security
3. "Freedom"

 

[CaptainF]

to quote Jimi Hendrix:

"Freeeeeeeeedom! That's what I want now!"

 

[Irish Caesar]

And exactly what would that be?

Small, de-centralized government.

 

[American]

Can't have one without the other. If you don't have freedom you can't establish security for yourself or your fellow citizens.

 

[nonconformist]

Small, de-centralized government.

Which is, ironically, the opposite of which the Republicans hgave been doing for the past while.