Those who have been indulged in the Augustine St. Clare residence have no understanding of life outside those walls. If everyone here was subject to the Simon Legree house for but a month this would be 100% to 0% - safety, Limbs and life are cast to the wind when you are a slave. Freedom is foundational to safety not the other way round. You folks ought to crack open Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Without freedom, You are dependent on others for "safety". That is less secure. The notion that the state can better protect you than yourself is so unbelievably preposterous and incredibly dangerous to even entertain.
The best way to lose freedom AND security is by giving up control of your life.
Did everyone just forgot slavery and Independence from the Britain's. Before the declaration of independence we were controlled by the britain's, If it wasn't for the brave americans fighting for our country america wouldn't be america. Though after we had slavery and people were not free, This was a time where america was at its worst, Especially with racism. Be honest could you live like slaves, Unable to make your own decisons and be able to be considered equal. Exactly. Security doesn't mean anything if people do not have freedom
Freedom is more important than security or safety because people want do whatever they want like the right to speak, To be heard, And to vote. You now can decide for yourself rather than having a stranger, Who could have an entirely different opinion on the topic at hand and decide for you. The drive for the ability to have freedom overpowers the desire for your guaranteed safety.
- no one wants their life to be controlled by other people! Other people chose when will you die!
- you could be separated from your family ( people in north korea are separated with the rest of the world, Some people’s family is outside, But they can never talk to them) if every day was sad there’s no point in living.
1) no one wants their life to be controlled by other people! Other people chose when will you die, How to be punished. . .
2) you could be separated from your family ( people in north korea are separated with the rest of the world, Some people’s family is outside, But they can never talk to them) if every day was sad there’s no point in living.
We need to make more choices in life. Most will have consequences. I'm not saying go all out freedom because that would lead to anarchy and chaos, But we need to limit the rules. Some rules are completely and utterly useless. We need to make our own choices with guidelines that can tell us what is right and what is wrong.
If someone ever says to me that your security is more important than your freedom, The first thing I'd do is try to smack some sense into them. For those of you who don't know, Security over liberty also means you're giving up your personal rights such as: being able to speak of what you want, Practice of religion, Freedom of etc. . . All of those rights written in the constitution are essentially being thrown away if you're letting the government provide security by controlling your lives. This is also known as Communism. The exact thing the US has been trying to avoid for the past 4 decades. Communism is essentially what I explained, But you also have no control over what you do in your life. Everyday is the same day in country with communism. You want to work as an Electrical Engineer? Oh, No no no. Instead you're going to be a manager for a car company. Oh, Wait. There aren't really car companies any more because the government will provide you with a car, And that'll be the one you get stuck with for the rest of your miserable life. See, You don't get a choice in the matter. That would be because of the lack of freedom. Freedom is important in a free country, And protecting the personal rights of people is the most important. If we allow the government to take control of our lives, We aren't living our lives at all. So, Essentially if you died, It wouldn't have even the slightest effect on anyone. So for all the people on the right saying the security is more important than freedom, I think I'd rather die and it mean something to the world rather than live a pointless and meaningless life. I could probably right a whole 10 page essay arguing about this deal, But I don't really have the time to right now since I have to do an actual project on it for a class that I signed up for. The government didn't choose the class for me, And I'd love for it to stay that way.
Most people on the opposite side of the debate are taking it to an extreme and saying garbage like "no laws, Everyone killing people on the street" or "become slaves of another country" the only people that want security more than freedom are beta males and liberal females that don't feel security from their spouse because he is a beta male. We should not establish our policies to pander to the weak.
Ill die free even if its in a pile of spent brass.
Probably beating a dead horse, But can’t help but notice the security>freedom guys making more spelling errors than sense. Freedom is security, And if you can’t see that, You’re not forming your own opinions. Freedom is a world where business is done only with voluntary interactions. We should strive to eliminate public funded social safety nets in favor of the ones that form naturally in our communities. Government tears us apart and puts us against each other but it wants us on its payroll so we never see it. Reject divisive and stupid left vs. Right and just think “should I force someone to do this? ” when thinking about a new policy or law.
Without measures of security, Our freedoms we value so much are in jeopardy. The social contract implies a responsibility from us as citizens - a quid pro quo - giving up some of our rights to protect those rights. The balance has to be achieved in order for all of our freedoms to be protected. Security applies to our rights - it encompasses more than just our physical safety. We want to be secure in our travel, In our finances, In our freedom to express ourselves, So when in times of conflict especially, Some have to be limited so in the long term they are all protected.
Without safety there can be no freedom. Would you rather be safe than free? Most people would want to be safe. Looking at the gun right debate, "anti-gun" individuals want to restrict freedom to hopefully increase safety with reducing deaths in mass shootings. Regarding H. L. Mencken, Safety is what society wants, It doesn't means they necessarily have it currently, It is just idealized, Rather than having personal, Economic, Or political freedom.
I frikced ur mom, Just cause i could, Your dad watched. And I think he liked it. Yup. Yup. Yup/. Ypu. Ypu / yuo skajfd sd f sd fs f sdf sa f a sd f ag asdfasd f asdf ds f sf sdf d. This whole 50 word thing is dum.
If you read the basic foundations of modern political science, You would understand that humans exist in the state of nature as inherently free, Independent and individual entities. To some, This may seem a dream. But, As Hobbes describes it, Life under this state of nature with complete freedom is poor, Nasty, Solitary, Brutish, And short. Indeed — freedom without the security of a ruling state is not a life I would like to live. "I would rather die a starving freeman than a fat slave. " No, Thanks! I'm fine with being a normal citizen, With laws to follow and duties to fulfill, In exchange for security. We must strike a balance with the state -- ensuring we have enough freedom to replace the government if necessary, But not so much that we are made unsafe.
This is the continual debate in US politics: freedom versus safety (equality). It is not an either or. . . But in the modern political scene, I'll vote for safety, Because the parties calling for liberty are in reality calling for a brutal, Harsh, Cold, Capitalistic state of nature in which the strong rule the weak. Pass!
The amount of security in a country could be a life or death situation for many citizens and if that situation comes to be, which would you rather have more security and alive, or less security but because of the reduced amount of security you are dead and most likely many others.
Security is more important than Freedom because imagine yourself as a person in a country where there is war. You have a family and you want to get out of the country. Just because you want to flee the country for freedom doesn't mean you are going to leave the country safely. In fact, there will only be a 0.01% chance in you and your family leaving the country. So if you lose your family while you flee the country, you just lost everything you had to live for.
Look. We could easily have a country with no laws, total freedom, and no government. But would we be safe? No. We would be in a world where chaos reigned, and anyone could kill or rob. But there would be total freedom, right? Actually, here's the issue. You might very well be dead because there is no security. Thumbs up me for a free imaginary hug!
If we do not have security there are no laws and we will have a permanent purge. With the purge going on people will be too afraid to leave their houses or everyone will be killed off. That would then be the end of the country as we know it.
If the country had full freedom and no security there would be nothing stopping people from killing each other. We would have a Purge for the rest of the country's life. Which would not be long at all. We may want more freedom, but I would rather be alive than dead.
Lets run this by the numbers. There are 30 confirmed cases where significant terrorists events were thwarted due to the authorities granted to federal agencies as a result of the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 and other post 9/11 acts. Specifically, the authorities granted under Title VII, section 702 were extremely instrumental in these efforts. 30 situations that could've resulted in a significant loss of American lives. I'm talking attacks on the order of 9/11. So, what's the argument against that? If you want to debate, then debate. I don't care about what you "think" or what you "feel." It's absolutely irrelevant. What are your facts to the contrary? Facts, not gibberish derived from your liberal echo chambers. I mean what facts substantiate that the measures taken to safeguard our citizenry (30 attacks averted) were unjust and in any harmed the people of this country? If you can't provide facts, and can only come back with useless comments, then you're only demonstrating your complete ignorance of the situation and are quite frankly wasting your time. It's better to remain silent and let others think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove yourself one.