Freedom or security?

[Deleted]

The questions I have now! Why are we moving closer to a world where we are babysat and monitered if more people would want less of that?

Because the people in power want more security and they're pushing it little by little under pretextes which people buy under either some horrific happenings or because they're stupid.

---------- Post added 2012-06-28 at 03:09 AM ----------

This libertarian idea of freedom is a pipe dream. I can do anything I want as long as it doesn't affect other people? Well, what if I want to create the porn industry? Sure, that's fine, because everyone who is in it chooses to and I pay them for it. But now someone else, who wants to live in a world untarnished by the porn industry, will never have the opportunity to do that, so their freedoms have become impinged.

Personally, I'd love to live in a world where fossil fuels were never considered an adequate fuel source. I wish I had the freedom to do that, but I can't, because the world has been forever changed by the decision to mass produce combustion engines and fuel based home heating, etc etc. You can never have the freedom to do whatever you want, because every large thing you can do will affect numbers of people.

Actually, you wouldn't be harming the people not wanting a porn industry's freedom. How would you? His freedom is to want it, and he has the ability to want a world without a porn industry. But he can't achieve that without entering and restricting your freedom, can he? And as such, he's denied because he attacked your freedom, as I said before, if someone harms someone else's freedom it's not ok.

And you're free to want your world without fossil fuels... you're free to not use them or create your own non-fossil fuel cars and stuff, but if you attempt to stop the fossil fuel factories, you'd be attacking someone else's freedom and as such, you'd be denied.

As I said, you can do what you want as long as you don't harm someone else's freedom. If you attempt to do so, you're exiting the principle, as you attempt to impose your control over other people's freedoms, and as such what you do is no longer your freedom, but your control.

[Deleted]

Because the people in power want more security and they're pushing it little by little under pretextes which people buy under either some horrific happenings or because they're stupid.

---------- Post added 2012-06-28 at 03:09 AM ----------


Actually, you wouldn't be harming the people not wanting a porn industry's freedom. How would you? His freedom is to want it, and he has the ability to want a world without a porn industry. But he can't achieve that without entering and restricting your freedom, can he? And as such, he's denied because he attacked your freedom, as I said before, if someone harms someone else's freedom it's not ok.

And you're free to want your world without fossil fuels... you're free to not use them or create your own non-fossil fuel cars and stuff, but if you attempt to stop the fossil fuel factories, you'd be attacking someone else's freedom and as such, you'd be denied.

As I said, you can do what you want as long as you don't harm someone else's freedom. If you attempt to do so, you're exiting the principle, as you attempt to impose your control over other people's freedoms, and as such what you do is no longer your freedom, but your control.

well the problem is.. harming other peoples freedom isnt that hard.. fossil fuels, burning fossil fuels might influence global warming thus hinder ones freedom to live in an unpolluted world. the idea of universal freedom is an illusion. some aspects of our society cant be left absolutly free, without control etc. (taxes, regulations and so on)

your so called secure nation isnt secure by any means.. its an insecure nation in which a desperate government tries to secure things with extreme measures..
a secure nation could be built out of better distrubtion of wealth resulting more "happines" and thus a lower crime rate.

the main problem is: there are , to my eyes, important aspects(choose if or which religion you want to adhere, who you want to love/marry/whatever, freedom to live a healthy life, live in a functional society) and less important aspects (economic freedom and some more...) and often some aspects contradict, or interfere with more important aspects, and thus should be regulated more harshley.
capitalsim being a good example.. in a true capitalist world there will always be awinner (economic-growth) and a looser (economic-shrinkage). so if your economy grows unchecked you probably will harm anothers economy and its peoples self-developement.only possible measrue to stop this: cut the freedom of your own economy (all economies) for the global good, a thing very unlikely to happen , but nvm.

edit: on a sitenote: -the gouvernment will find you a job, give some rules on what to wear, and you'll never be unemployed for more then a month........ wtf? why on earth did you put in the "give some rules on what to wear" part in there.. it just makes the whole cake bad. you kinda did this rather often:
-military being the only executive branch in "securia"
-dictatorship being the only possible form of "government"
-draconic punishments for a "code of conduct" without any leeways
and so on...
btw: if you distribute wealth properly theres no need for uniforms as everyone can choose and buy what they want to wear.
if you educate everyone you have to worry less bout drugs, as most people know the risks.
and last but not least. there a things called fire alarm wích can alert other people of accidental fires without infringing your personal freedom

[Beavis]

In before benjamin franklin quotes (if my memory doesn't trick me)

I was going to say that!

[Arkenaw]

First five words of the security explanation made me vote freedom.

[Deleted]

well the problem is.. harming other peoples freedom isnt that hard.. fossil fuels, burning fossil fuels might influence global warming thus hinder ones freedom to live in an unpolluted world. the idea of universal freedom is an illusion. some aspects of our society cant be left absolutly free, without control etc. (taxes, regulations and so on)

your so called secure nation isnt secure by any means.. its an insecure nation in which a desperate government tries to secure things with extreme measures..
a secure nation could be built out of better distrubtion of wealth resulting more "happines" and thus a lower crime rate.

the main problem is: there are , to my eyes, important aspects(choose if or which religion you want to adhere, who you want to love/marry/whatever, freedom to live a healthy life, live in a functional society) and less important aspects (economic freedom and some more...) and often some aspects contradict, or interfere with more important aspects, and thus should be regulated more harshley.
capitalsim being a good example.. in a true capitalist world there will always be awinner (economic-growth) and a looser (economic-shrinkage). so if your economy grows unchecked you probably will harm anothers economy and its peoples self-developement.only possible measrue to stop this: cut the freedom of your own economy (all economies) for the global good, a thing very unlikely to happen , but nvm.

edit: on a sitenote: -the gouvernment will find you a job, give some rules on what to wear, and you'll never be unemployed for more then a month........ wtf? why on earth did you put in the "give some rules on what to wear" part in there.. it just makes the whole cake bad. you kinda did this rather often:
-military being the only executive branch in "securia"
-dictatorship being the only possible form of "government"
-draconic punishments for a "code of conduct" without any leeways
and so on...
btw: if you distribute wealth properly theres no need for uniforms as everyone can choose and buy what they want to wear.
if you educate everyone you have to worry less bout drugs, as most people know the risks.
and last but not least. there a things called fire alarm wích can alert other people of accidental fires without infringing your personal freedom

I agree on some points you got. Fossil fuels will lead to problems and other stuff, meaning a true free nation can't exist. So I'm using a most inclined to freedom possible I could think of for now.

About the security nation, there's a code on what to wear because someone might put chains on his jeans then use said chain to strangle someone. The army doesn't want to take that risk in this hypotetical nation, the security nation has an almost paranoid leadership thinking of more and more ways in which people could harm themselves and others to protect them, to make them secure, but they can only do this by controlling everything.
And about other types of clothing, there was a paper once I read that said there's a link between what some women wear and who is raped, I don't know if it's true, but a nation that likes to think "better safe then sorry" in any case might not take any chance.

As I explained, dictatorship because only as such can they control everything. Despite what you think, people are not robots, even in the army, with some highly trained people, there's some criminals breaking the line in the real world, and they're some of the most order based parts of our world. Therefor, to control a population it is not enough to educate them, because there will always be some who fail, but you need to both educate them and control them to ensure they're secure. This reminds me of a movie, alas I forgat the name, but in some future, humans build a house-computer to have their house secure all the time. After a while the computer starts to "think" that it's not safe for humans to walk around all the time, using forks, eating unhealthy, going outside where the computer can't watch over them and similar stuff, so it traps said people inside the house controlling all they do under the pretext of security. This is the basis on which the SECURITY state is based on, it wants so bad to secure its people it goes to extremes. Both nations are the extremes of one another.

I hope I explained better what I wanted to show with each nation. One is the freedom nation, so free it almost leans towards anarchy and works under some dodgy principles with a bit of corruption, and the other is the paranoid security nation that thinks of new ways its people can hurt themselves every day trying to secure them from anything, even themselves, and lives in the constant fear of something bad happening.

[TheGhostAgent]

Freedom. Those who are willing to give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security deserves neither.