Freedom vs. Protection


Ad: Buy Girls Und Panzer Merch from Play Asia!
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

I may have something to same more about this topic later, but right now that best describes the way I feel.
 
QUOTE (Patrick5087 @ Mar 27 2008, 05:31 AM) "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Nice quote, but the debate lies often in the 'little, temporary' part.
So it doesn't help a lot.
 
QUOTE (Benjamin Franklin @ Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

To elaborate on Dalriada's point and (use a real life example) consider this. Prior to the war in Iraq the Iraqi people had little freedoms to free speech and their movements were largely monitored. The people however had relative safety if they didn't talk politics, not to mention they could go to work/school without fear of being killed. Now people in Iraq have the freedom but there is no safety. It is not like the odd person dies but a dozen (even dozens) die everyday for the best part of 5 years. Which scenario is better?

I am sure Bush will say the latter is better but consider this what would you prefer? Little rights to free speech with relative safety or your freedoms and total chaos. The choice is pretty difficult indeed many people now wish Saddam Hussain was still in power as there was relative peace. On the other hand some people prefer the current situation. The issue of freedom and safety is definitely a hot issue over there and there doesn't seem to be a universal answer. It just shows that issues of safety are not always that little or temporary.

Besides little security is never good for business so it bound to have a negative affect on the economy. As result the overall standard of living will decrease and the people suffer even more (look at the state of firms/schools/hospitals even universities as examples). Okay so things can pick up in the future but that may take the best part of 20 years if not longer. Are people really willing to put up with 20 years of hardship on the off chance things might get better in the future?
 
Freedom in my life is a mental and spiritual battle to escape ones own desires and become the humble bond servant of Christ.

The more I try to run my own life the more hollow it becomes, I find as the years wear on it becomes more and more apparent that the thing I must truly escape and be free of is my own selfish desires, witch constantly enslave me and have taken me many places I have come to regret in hindsight.

What you are talking about I would describe as Liberty, not true freedom.
Because I think freedom could be more accurately described as a state of mind, rather than a state of being.
 
How about gaining protection at the expense of the freedom of others? What have you people got to say about that...

Today i saw a segment on BBC/CNN [Forgot which one] featuring an Algerian man named Mohammed Harkat, currently living in Ottawa, Canada, who has been under house arrest and surveilance for almost a decade. The reason? Undisclosed due to national security reasons, not even to the poor man's attorney and himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Harkat

Now i say, i can't take anything against the Canadian government if they're just out to look for the welfare of their citizens. But when i found out that they didn't even tell him why he was arrested, put to jail in 2002, [At least that's what he and his lawyer says] i got really pissed and surprised at the same time. Surprised that Canada actually is the opposite of what i thought it was at least in that aspect, and pissed because they should at least let the man know why. It's his right to know why. Now i'm not saying all Canadians are in favor of this, of course that doesn't apply to all, i'm just referring to the guys behind this.

Now what's your take on this matter? I could've put it in the stereotypes thread due to the aspect of racism but i guess it's more appropriate here.
 
personally, "give me liberty or give me death" i choose freedom over protection as many ways as i can (excluding organized military forces)
Plato, however, believed that the only way to a euphoric society was to restrict freedoms.
The founders of America had the opposite feelings (personally i believe B. Franklin was a S*** load smarter that Plato) but both werte brilliant and had well posed arguments for their beliefs.
decide for yourself, read "Plato's New Republic" and see if you agree with it.
 
QUOTE (TheGuardian @ May 31 2008, 01:37 AM)personally, "give me liberty or give me death" i choose freedom over protection as many ways as i can (excluding organized military forces)
Such things are easy to say that in the safety of our homes. Will your views remain the same when car/suicide bombings are a daily occurrence? In such scenarios people often want safety before freedom. Even if we take the current political climate on terrorism people are forsaking human rights under the name of national security. As khael highlights people are not allowed a free trial while others face torture. Sometimes the police are given additional search powers that infringe on our personal freedoms. Then there's the patriot act...


QUOTE (TheGuardian)Plato, however, believed that the only way to a euphoric society was to restrict freedoms.
The founders of America had the opposite feelings (personally i believe B. Franklin was a S*** load smarter that Plato) but both werte brilliant and had well posed arguments for their beliefs.
Ultimate freedom is paralysing. Check out my example with cheese.
wink.gif
Also with freedom comes responsibility. And responsibility is an area that people often forget. If people can't show responsibility to their freedoms they should be restricted. An example people say we are entitled to free speech. If I use this freedom to inspire racial hate I am using my freedom irresponsibility. As a result my freedom should be restricted. So you see although freedoms are good a balance needs to be struck.
 
QUOTE Such things are easy to say that in the safety of our homes. Will your views remain the same when car/suicide bombings are daily occurrence and you fear for your families safety? In such scenarios people often want safety before freedom.

Another solution is not choosing between safety and freedom, but choose safety, freedom for myself and no freedom for others. Strangely, people are usually far more accepting when it's not their liberties that are reduced.

It's what Israel is trying to do (Israel is democratic, as long as you don't look at the treatment of palestinians). It's not working very well.


QUOTE Example people say we are entitled to free speech. If I use this freedom to inspire racial hate I am using my freedom irresponsibility. As a result my freedom should be restricted.

By the way, no country on earth has complete free speech.
Except maybe the dailymotion & youtube comments. And it's a very good argument against complete free speech.
 
QUOTE (Dalriada @ Jun 03 2008, 08:22 PM)Another solution is not choosing between safety and freedom, but choose safety, freedom for myself and no freedom for others. Strangely, people are usually far more accepting when it's not their liberties that are reduced.
Very true. It happens everywhere especially if the other people are labelled terrorists (often with little or no proof). Guantanamo Bay is a fine example of this. Nonetheless civil liberties are often comprised in the interest of national security. After all fear is a common tool used by the government to control the population. It has been used in the past and I believe it is being used today.


QUOTE (Dalriada)By the way, no country on earth has complete free speech.
Except maybe the dailymotion & youtube comments. And it's a very good argument against complete free speech.
I'm not naive enough to believe any country has complete free speech. In any case I actually advocate restricting this freedom. If there was complete free speech then people would be open to say truly horrific things (racist, sexist etc). Putting too much restrictions on free speech has it's obvious disadvantages however. That is why I said it is important to strike the right balance.

I'm sure similar things can be said about other freedoms. If people cannot exercise their freedoms responsibly they should be restricted. Otherwise the freedom will create it's own problems.
 
wal-mart is one us company that goes too far, i believe in the us philosophy of freedom but i hate when people abuse it, our country can become just a place to search for money and make others lives miserable abusing your freedoms, the new testament specifically says that the love of money is the root of evil and i believe this, if our rights werent abused than a close to perfect world could be acheived
 
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Back
Top