Freedom Vs Security.

[jafink]

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

Haha good point

Example: ------>>>

 

[blackheart]

But then the people with the big guns would be secure.

I'm assuming the question is talking about society though, not individuals.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Its talking abut society but also a little about individuals. That comes from things like racism and the such. But then would you want to be free from racism or secure from it?

 

[Tee Kay]

What good is freedom without security?

 

[ThePhysicist]

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.

Who wants security without freedom. I would rather die than be imprisoned (literally or figuratively) "for my own good."

 

[Babbler]

I would pick security. True, I like freedom and believe it to be important, but I like living better. There is no freedom without security; no one is free if a gunman can enter your home at will.

 

[vbraun]

Security could lead to a world like Brave New World. And that kind of world is just boring. So I'll take my freedom and excitment.

 

[The Condor]

Let Freedom Ring! Being able to do what I want went I want would just rock!

 

[mdwh]

Of course, it's an assumption that there is a tradeoff between security and freedom in the first place. This is a myth peddled by those in favour of restricting freedom, but often this isn't the case, and in those situations, I oppose their view not because I don't care about security, but because I don't believe their suggestions will improve security anyway.

In some cases, losing freedom actually makes things worse, eg:
- After the London bombings, people suggested needing ID cards or doing bag searches. The problem is that the huge queues created would themselves now be a new terrorist target - the bombers could kill large numbers now without needing to board the trains.
- ID cards claim to reduce identity theft, but the centralised database could easily make identify theft more likely.

 

[Elrohir]

50-50. Without Freedom, you can't truly live, and without security you won't live at all. (You'll be dead) You need both, a balence between the two.

 

[MjM]

Security > Freedom. kk?tks

 

[willemvanoranje]

big brother...

FREEDOM!

 

[Lotus49]

I voted 50-50. As much as I love freedom, you can't sacrifice security, as there's just too many people out there that need to be controlled. A society where all the riff-raff can run wild and do whatever they please would be Hellish. A total lack of security would quickly turn into anarchy. Thus, it's a balance, that must be maintained.

 

[The Yankee]

It looks like a lot of the people that voted 50-50 took the question far too literally and say the Freedom option means no law. As I understand it, Freedom is essentially keeping the basic rights and rule of law, 50-50 is sacrificing some of those rights for security, and security is potentially surrendering them all for the sake of "security," whatever that may be.

They're not mutually exclusive, freedom and security. Yet when they're put at odds, in competition, I will back Freedom.

George W. Bush said it best, as I found in my copy of Time Magazine this week:

"The vast majority of Iraqis perfer freedom with intermittent power to life in the permanent darkness of tyranny and terror."
-President George W. Bush, warning Americans to gird for more violence in Iraq over the coming year

Time Magazine, Notebook, January 23, 2006 issue, page 15.

 

[CartesianFart]

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

Security could lead to a world like Brave New World. And that kind of world is just boring. So I'll take my freedom and excitment.

big brother...

Sigh! Seems to me that people in here use too much emphasis on the dystopian novels way too much to deviate and abstract what is real.

I find it ironic that people use analogy of Brave New World,or 1984 as a legitimate argument against so called oppressive policing or coming to be police state which the Novelists[Orwell or Huxley]wasnt intended to do.

 

[The Yankee]

Well, if "they hate us for our freedom," why are we talking about giving that up? Wouldn't that be a surrender?

I haven't read Brave New World or 1984, but "security" is the mantra of countries like the Soviet Union and North Korea.

 

[CartesianFart]

Well, if "they hate us for our freedom," why are we talking about giving that up? Wouldn't that be a surrender?

No.It is only giving up some for the preservation of the many freedoms in our lives

I haven't read Brave New World or 1984, but "security" is the mantra of countries like the Soviet Union and North Korea.

You should read those novels.I recommend More's novel 'Utopia',for starters or Plato's Republic.

 

[Panzeh]

I'm an anarchist, and i'd prefer people walking around carrying assault rifles in the streets over having to rely on anyone else for my security. Security is material and material things should be one's own responsibility. Freedom, in the sense of negative liberty is the way to go.

 

[CartesianFart]

I'm an anarchist, and i'd prefer people walking around carrying assault rifles in the streets over having to rely on anyone else for my security. Security is material and material things should be one's own responsibility. Freedom, in the sense of negative liberty is the way to go.

To quote Hobbes-life will be nasty,brutish and short.

 

[Panzeh]

To quote Hobbes-life will be nasty,brutish and short.

But it surely won't be boring.