Zygomaticus Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 The thought just crossed my mind - in the USA or anywhere else which do you value more? Your freedom or your safety... Seeing many of the measures taken to make the US a safer place to live in, many people have lost the freedom that they used to have - for ex. the hundreds of arabs imprisoned in LA. (although they may be free soon it still happened). So i was just wondering - which do you think makes the USA more of what it is - the freedom we have or how safe we are, and which do you prefer to have. I'll say my opinion soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I prefer both...which we had until 9/11... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I don't live in US, and I much prefer safety. But I prefer safety by rules and regulations and an efficent police that make sure that these rules are held, instead of by unnessisery imprisonings that really don't do more than making people feel safe. Freedom is important, of course, but too much freedom is really bad. I think people should think much more about safety instead. I prefer both...which we had until 9/11... How did you lose freedom at 9/11? And you didn't lose much safety either, the number of people that died then isn't anything near the number of people who died because of guns, tobacco, drugs and car accidents. I would wish your goverment gave more attention to those problems, instead of giving the terrorists even more reason to hate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 freedom..... easy choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Safety, of course. Loss of freedom is only a threat to those who have something to hide. To a certain extent of course. As long as we have basic freedoms and rights, then it doens't matter what the government does. I'd really like to see the government give more freedom to business than to individuals. You can get away with nearly anything as an individual, but practically everything is regulated in business. And they wonder why the economy isn't doing so hot. Overall, safety is more important than say... complete protection of privacy or complete freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 tie... without freedom... safety does u no good bro... but both must be present in some degree to satisfy peeps i guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 I much prefer freedom more than safety although some safety has to be present anyways. If only the US would learn to stay out of countries affairs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 The answer is simple, I prefer neither. Instead I perfer a balance between the two. ---------------- Just a few thoughts on what others said: Before 9/11, we had the illusion of saftey. When that illusion was taken away I believe it was to our benefit. Look at the period in time when the government praticed Laisse Faire (SP?). Businesses were not regulated did what ever they wanted...working conditions where horrible ect. THere is a very good reason why Businesses are regulated. Which is to prevant them from destroying the enviroment, taking advantage of consumers ect. Even with current regulations they still can get away with a lot of thing. Without Safty, Freedom does you no good. As I said a balance between the two is need. The US tried Isolationism, it failed. We are a power in the world and as such have a certain responsiblity to it. Namely stepping in when other countries are commiting wrongs (example: Bosnia, Solmolia, and Kosovo). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mex Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Safety, I would rather be safe than dead. Freedom with terrorists around = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Originally posted by JEDI_MASTA tie... without freedom... safety does u no good Explain yourself, please. Perhaps what you meant to say was "freedom without responsibility, is chaos." That makes a lot more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMasterEd Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Well, we have many freedoms, and one that has been under fire was the right to bear arms. 9/11 only showed how our safety was lack. I would say both because the people in this country need something to live for, in this case, freedom. America will always be a country of freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn How did you lose freedom at 9/11? Never said I lost my freedom, but like a lot of people I do feel a little less safe, particularly because I live in NYC. I saw ground zero with my own eyes, live and in person. Maybe if you saw it that way you would feel a little less safe too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Originally posted by Kylilin Never said I lost my freedom, but like a lot of people I do feel a little less safe, particularly because I live in NYC. I saw ground zero with my own eyes, live and in person. Maybe if you saw it that way you would feel a little less safe too. Not to mention there are now certain limits on freedom of speech and protection of privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Snow Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 The problem is there's an inverse proportionality between freedom and safety. Or, in English, the more freedom you have the less safety and the more safety you have the less freedom. Every law grants you safety but restricts your freedom. Homicide, rape, torture, pedophelia, robbery, assault are all laws that we have come to accept as protection, but that does not mean they restrict our freedom TO kill and rape and torture. Although I personally would never do these things, and we need these laws to prevent our bestial members of society from doing them, from a purely philosophical point of view laws that promote safety restrict freedom. Knowing that I say it is only possible to have a balance. According to proportionality principles, if you have only (or infinite in math terms) safety as some ppl want, you'd have no freedom to do ANYTHING, not even like in Russia with communism because it's still possible for you to go and punch a neighbour - they can't stop you until after you create the "unsafeness". And if you want absolute/infinite freedom, you'd have no safety. Thus we need a balance. I think the US has gotten a bit ridiculous. Forgive me for saying this, but 9/11 has been way overdone. I'm sorry, but just b/c it's america the undefeatable doesn't make the deaths of 3000 americans any more important than the thousands of deaths in the middle east right now. We really should realize that 9/11, as horrible as it was is not in itself the worse thing that has happened in the last 5 years, and should accept it as such. I think we're becoming way too safety conscious, especially when it not only takes away our freedom but also causes legal prejudice through ethnic profiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMasterEd Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 I have noticed that most of the reasons why we do things is because of 9/11. Though I am a proud American, the 9/11 excuse is getting old. Yes it was a tragic event, surely enough, and it scared most of us while we were in school in our studies. It has been the center of focus for most of the things we do outside of this country. 9/11 shouldn't be an excuse anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Yeah...good thing its not being used anymore. Not on the issue of Iraq and Korea if thats what you mean. We aren't going to attack Iraq because of 9/11, not ultimately, we are going to attack him because he has weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them on America and his neighbors. But still, why not use 9/11 as an excuse? Once upon a time an attack on a country during peacetime was a perfectly legitemate reason for war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy But still, why not use 9/11 as an excuse? Once upon a time an attack on a country during peacetime was a perfectly legitemate reason for war. The problem is, it is impossible to go to war against terrorism. For example, who attacked you? Afghanistan? Certainly not. Taliban? No, not them either. Bin Laden? Sure, but you can't go to war against 1 man. Al Quida? Yes, but they are an organization, you can't destroy them by bombing. we are going to attack him because he has weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them on America and his neighbors. Just because he has them, doesn't mean he is going to use them. And we haven't even seen proof that he has mass destruction weapons at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Qui-Gon, why don't you tell that to Israel, or Kuwait. He's launched scud missles at both. And we do have proof that he used chemical weapon on his own people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy And we do have proof that he used chemical weapon on his own people. Then why don't the government give something to the media or show it themselves? He may have used it on his own people among other cruelties, but it's all just by word and nothing more.. Besides, America is rushing the inspections abit too early, so war will certainly be inevitable.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 You can fight a war with terrorist, however it cannot and never will be a conventional war. In other words the War on Terrorism will not be one where you fight over land, and try to control it. Instead it will be eliminating their bases and hunting them down. This war also means making other Countries realize that giving sanctuary to terrorist, is not a good idea. (Hence our attack against the Taliban for aiding Bin Laden). ------------------------- Now to Iraq. Whether or not he has weapons will be detrimined by the inspectors if he is found to be in material breach of the sanctions then war is the next step. Outside of that, we have every reason to go to war with Iraq right now (that is with out him have weapons of mass destruction). For years now Iraq has been shooting at our plans patrolling the no fly zones. THe ones that were imposed by the peace treaty. In fact he has shoot down some unmaned aircraft. Now unless I'm mistaken shooting at our military with the intentions of killing pilots/destroying the air craft is an act of war. If we give proof to the media then it may comprimise intelligence resources in the area. This is why the inspectors have been sent to Iraq. It is also why we are hoping that some of Iraq's scientist will defect and tell us more. (The inspector when they first arrived found no trace of biological weapons, they were only discovered after a scientist defected and told the UN about those weapons). Before we go to war, Bush will make it clear that Iraq is in material breach of the UN Sanctions. Once again that doesn't mean he has to have weapons, shooting at our plans can be enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Does it have to be a saftey? I'd rather have Rod Woodson pickin it off from the CB position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Stop this debating in this thread guys this is about freedom or safety, no the war on iraq, if you wanna pick that debate up, dig up the thread. Anyway, I believe in the equal balance of both, and the U.S. is pretty good in this aspect in my humble opinion. I'm conservative, therefore I believe in a little bit more freedom than safety, but others have equally good views for believing in safety over freedom, so it really is not a choice between the 2 but a balance of the 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Explain yourself, please. Perhaps what you meant to say was "freedom without responsibility, is chaos." That makes a lot more sense. tie, i mean that i can keep you safe easy... lock you up in a nuke proof building with all the food you'll need for your life, you wont be able to go anywhere or talk to anybody or if you do get threatened u wont be able to defend yourself or speak. but you will be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Both of course, you can't choose one extreme. You could argue that you already have all the freedom you want - breaking laws not taken into consideration. But freedom of thought is the most important to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Alright, but freedom without safety does you no good either. You can be free to do whatever you want, but as soon as some guy wants to kill you he can, and your not free anymore (not on this earth anyways). If you don't have safety then you never are truly free. I obviously didn't mean that we shouldn't have any freedom, and i think i've said that, but the question is which is more important? And the answer, clearly, is safety. Being free doesn't do you any good if you aren't alive to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.