If you're in prison, you're safer but have a lot less freedom. Anyone want to voluntarily incarcerate themselves?
To dear people who had chose the right column,
Please read the book 'The Giver.'
Would you like to live in a place like that? By the way, security isn't guaranteed. Everyday the government says "We'll make sure that our citizens will be safe .. Blah blah blah..."
However, are we indeed safe? The answer is "NO!"
When the govt starts regulating every aspect of our lives then we should know that there's something wrong. Absolute power corrupts, so we shouldn't let them watch us make every move.
I think at first it was tolerable but since the news of the PRISM project things are getting way out of line.
If we aren't even free to write what we want without the risk of being prosecuted then where is our right of freedom of speech. The govt exists to serve its people, not to rule over them.
Besides we wouldn't need all that security if the govt. Stopped fcking up the other countries.
When doing a some research everyone can point out that the federal reserve is to blame for most of the western problems, their actions have only been for self enrichment and they do not care about anyone else, they just want the govt to start more wars so they can loan them more money which the American people can repay with their tax money.
Believe it or or we are being tricked into giving up our freedom. We are safer now than we have ever been but our preception is of a dangerous world; manufactured by those who would like to relieve us of our rights. Don't fall for it! It is all a ruse.
In this way, you are free to protect yourself in what way seems best to you and I think that's one of the best things about our country. On the other hand, what doesn't adapt to change will eventually die, so perhaps it doesn't make much sense to never change when it goes against logic. However, it seems to me, that at this time, freedom is still more important. Only a greater threat to all the citizens lives would make this seem acceptable to me. What good is freedom is you aren't around to enjoy it? These actions do not seem justified with such little threat to so few at this point in time.
How "safe" were the brave men who died fighting for our freedoms against Hitler? By giving up our freedoms for the sake of security we dishonour their memories, and do not deserve the gift they gave us. Give up our freedoms, and sooner or later those in control will do anything in the name of "safety", and eventually that will be lost too.
With freedom, we can take care of ourselves. Without freedom there is no security, only the illusion that others will protect us better than we can protect ourselves. If ever a line is drawn dividing the country into free and secure zones, have no doubt which side of the line I will stand on. I will stand with the freedom-loving people of this land!
Security infringements means losing our freedom, once we lose our freedoms what do we need security from.....
We then need security from those that took away our freedoms, but wait, now we have NO WAY of getting the freedoms back as we have NO RIGHTS to fight with.
Remember the mafia offering protection of your establishment from hoodlum's for a price, then you realized you needed protection from those offering the security as they were the real thief's.
Many of these "precautions" the US Government has been enforcing on us have gone too far. Especially when it involves the TSA. Flying in the US has become more hassle than it's worth. If full bod pat downs weren't enough, now we have full body scanners than put every nook and cranny of the body on display. Your body is your property and this is just out of hand. Also we put way too much money into the military. When we should be focusing on education we waste money on our military and try to police the world.
Danger is a constant, we will never live in a world in which some someone or something isn't out to get the proverbial "us". Freedom, however, is something that was and continues to be fought for; it is an exceptional and unique gift that must be preserved at all costs.
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.