I don't think it's either freedom or security and that you can have both

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Then there's the best part where I had a massive brain fart and completely forgot what "mutually exclusive" meant. I apologize.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

wait a minute why do you disagree?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because I forgot to take my vote back.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know what you mean on the first comment the word mutually and exclusive seem like opposites to me and I still have to look up the meaning to be sure

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The problem of course is not that they are incompatible, it is when governments take away basic rights and say they are doing so to enhance security. That is what Franklin warned against - a government that claims it must remove freedoms to ensure security. That is unadulterated torus feces.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

oh I have no problem heeding his warning with that quote of his maybe he's not talking about the exceptions there's gotta be situations where the security trumps the freedom like jaywalking for example it might be one of those quotes that have another side like opposites attract and birds of a feather flock together

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh sure. Tons of examples where security trumps freedom. I am not free to rob you. The concern, for me, is the basic freedoms, those guaranteed by e.g., Magna Carta or Bill of Rights. I guess you are familiar with these words but the still ring true, lest we not forget them... [We] are ...endowed by [the] Creator with certain unalienable Rights [and so] whenever any Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their __Safety__ and Happiness.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

https://data.amirite.net/user_images/516fbb4e3ece7.jpg ...Torus feces?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

oops. *taurus.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't know what cases are going through your mind right now, but thinking broadly, it seems they are. To save us from terrorists; we pass the NDAA. To save us from Japanese-American citizens in WWII; we put them in internment camps. To save us from our obese selves, we ban large soft drinks. To save us from mass-murdering lunatics, we tighten gun restrictions on everyone. To save us from an intellectual gap, we pass NCLB. Again, if you have some counter-examples, they would be welcomed, but in the most large and obvious cases, it seems to me that you're incorrect

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I still don't see freedom and security like I see a coin toss I think there's a lot of overlap between freedom and security and there are varying degrees of each that coexist together sometimes there's a situation where the freedom and security are balanced other times there's more of one than the other but they're both still there in some way, shape, or form in other words I don't think you either have one or the other you can get heads and tails at the same time in that case

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well sure they coexist. If the government tells me that I can't own a handgun, but can still own a rifle, freedom is lost for the sake of security, yet they still traded off. I'm lately turning into somewhat of an anarchist. Not the crazy, hippie, peace and love type, but I feel like there's really no reason that anybody should be able to tell me to live my life a certain way. For example, I just filled out paperwork to lifeguard at a county-run pool this summer. I realized that all the papers I was filling out and signing were federal and state laws that I had to comply with just for the apparent privilege to earn a living. That's not freedom. I think that the only true purpose of a large governmental body is to protect its citizens militarily and provide the infrastructure for development. A few extra small things, but past that I should be able to do pretty much anything I want that doesn't detriment anyone else. It comes down to whether you're like me and value my individuality and right to my own decisions, or whether you value "security"...whatever that is

by Anonymous 11 years ago

well with anarchy security drops to low levels and you get chaos freedom wouldn't be all that enjoyable with all that going on that's why I think there should be a balance between the two I think both are vital and need to work together

by Anonymous 11 years ago

When I say "somewhat of an anarchist" I don't mean complete government collapse where it's okay to murder, steal, and rape. But my ideal government would be one where if I'm not doing anything to detriment anyone (unless it's due to their own actions or follies), then they should leave me alone. Obviously that won't happen because that's not the way governments develop. You can say there should be a balance, but who decides what that balance is? For Stalin, the balance was more "security" for less freedom and what resulted was one of the most oppressive regimes in history. Under the Articles of Confederation, the balance was too far right and the country couldn't function as one. That's why I support states' authority over the federal government's; because smaller groups of people can agree on the balance that suits them and everybody is happier with their situation. I still stick with Ben Franklin's view: ”He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.” Also, I still don't feel you've defended your original claim. Show me how they don't trade off

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I never said they don't trade off I only claimed they're not mutually exclusive and I wasn't talking about you with the anarchy that was an example I don't even know what you're trying to argue what you're saying seems as if you're agreeing with this post

by Anonymous 11 years ago

trade off = mutually exclusive. X can not equal Y. For every unit of security that you gain, you must lose and equal unit of freedom. I was in no way agreeing with the post.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

the mall has security that allows people the freedom of roaming the malls with less fear and worry

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's a completely different scenario. The mall owns itself and has a right to protect its staff, merchandise, and customers. Theoretically, the government should own nothing. Every government establishment, employee, service, or product is payed for by taxes and therefore belongs to the taxpayers. Now your example becomes analogous to people having the right to bear arms and the customers become akin to freedom itself; people have the right to protect themselves against having their freedoms taken away.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

well on a larger scale there's police so people can have the freedom to roam the streets with less fear freedom and security coexisting and not being mutually exclusive

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Less fear? I don't know about you, but when I'm driving, I'm much more scared of passing a cop while speeding than I am of ever being attacked or assaulted. But even if that were the case, by police being deployed, you still lose freedoms. You can say the New York Soda Ban gives us the freedom to not be obese but it still takes away potential choices, and courses of action that you could take

by Anonymous 11 years ago

it's still not like coin toss where you have to have one or the other heads or tails there's both I think freedom requires security I can see this easily with anarchy

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They are not "mutually" exclusive. A rich person who owns an island and can afford security is free to do anything she wants in a very secure environment. I agree with what you wrote above but am not convinced there is a cause/effect relationship other than the one the government concocts to justify taking away freedoms. Another example. Instead of body searches at airports that could provide individual planes for each passenger, increasing both security and freedom. [Far fetched and hypothetical but ...]

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well when we say "security" we don't mean having safety from murderers in the night. Think about it like this; people having freedom opens the door for choices and alternative courses of action. Obviously, some choices are better than others and not everybody makes the best choice. People get scared by the possibility of themselves or others making bad choices and reaping bad consequences. In order to make the possibility of that outcome smaller, they decide to make it so that only the "better" option is a possible choice. In this way they gain "security" but lose freedoms. Taking your hypothetical into the real world; larger flights are cheaper and would therefore attract more business, making your plan ineffective. The only way to enact that plan would be to mandate it: and lose our freedom to choose flights, which would have huge repercussions on individuals, the transport industry, and the entire world market. This only further illustrates that they do trade off. I still can't think of a real-world example where this principle doesn't apply, but I truly would love for my cynical point of view to be proven wrong

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Still don't think OP is on to something - so one more try: the right to bare arms increase your security. the right to install locks increases your security. The right to own property allows you to install a fence thereby increasing your security. If you don't buy this then I guess you win.

by Anonymous 11 years ago