(Close Window)
Topic: Would you choose stability & security over personal freedom?
Message: Posted by: panlives (Nov 30, 2011 06:49AM)
Would you risk the foundations (safe haven, food and shelter) to reach for freedom?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Nov 30, 2011 07:17AM)
Yes... :ohyes:

Currently doing it.

Going for my dreams.

We pass this way only once.

And no one knows how long the journey is.
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Nov 30, 2011 09:24AM)
Yup.
Message: Posted by: diehards2080 (Nov 30, 2011 05:51PM)
With out a doubt yes.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 30, 2011 05:53PM)
Ben Franklin said some wise words about that. I agree with him.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Nov 30, 2011 06:40PM)
Can anyone ever truly be free?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Nov 30, 2011 07:05PM)
[quote]
On 2011-11-30 19:40, Payne wrote:
Can anyone ever truly be free?
[/quote]

Nope.

Not if you want to pay the bills... :goof:
Message: Posted by: acesover (Nov 30, 2011 09:57PM)
[quote]
On 2011-11-30 19:40, Payne wrote:
Can anyone ever truly be free?
[/quote]

Obviously depends on your perception of freedom.

Do you mean free to worship and have a say about how you are going to live your life, or free to do as you desire with no repercussions? Both are what some may call freedom but are entirely different in concept.
Message: Posted by: motown (Nov 30, 2011 10:10PM)
Yes!
Message: Posted by: randirain (Nov 30, 2011 10:42PM)
Am I missing something?

You people would rather have security than freedom?

You would rather be safe and be told what to do, instead of taking a risk to be able to live how you see fit?

That's crazy!

Surely I am reading this wrong.

Personally, I will take my chances if it means people staying the hell out of my business.
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Nov 30, 2011 10:47PM)
[quote]
On 2011-11-30 23:42, randirain wrote:
Am I missing something?

You people would rather have security than freedom?

You would rather be safe and be told what to do, instead of taking a risk to be able to live how you see fit?

That's crazy!

Surely I am reading this wrong.

Personally, I will take my chances if it means people staying the hell out of my business.
[/quote]

Seems that the subject and the query posed by the OP are not congruent. The subject states one thing, but the question the opposite. Seems everyone else is in favor of freedom over security.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 30, 2011 11:53PM)
Yes, that confused me also. The question asked in the original post is exactly the opposite of the question asked in the thread title.

But the whole problem with the question is that security, stability and personal freedom aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, so the either/or proposition is a misleading dichotomy.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 1, 2011 12:36AM)
[quote]
On 2011-11-30 23:42, randirain wrote:
Am I missing something?

You people would rather have security than freedom?

You would rather be safe and be told what to do, instead of taking a risk to be able to live how you see fit?

That's crazy!

Surely I am reading this wrong.

Personally, I will take my chances if it means people staying the hell out of my business.
[/quote]

So do you obey traffic laws and pay your taxes? If you do you are already allowing your freedoms to be impinged.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Dec 1, 2011 02:00AM)
I bet two eggs in the dark.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 1, 2011 05:39AM)
I know what everyone means, and great sentiments. Till ya have to fight for it though... ahh well.

Payne, hardly the point.

I believe this is what mastermindreader was speaking of.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It is often attributed to Franklin (Sometimes even Thomas Jefferson.) but as I recall it is not certain. Not the point though, it fits.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Dec 1, 2011 06:47AM)
[quote]
On 2011-11-30 19:40, Payne wrote:
Can anyone ever truly be free?
[/quote]

In this world? Only through Rock and Roll.
Message: Posted by: panlives (Dec 1, 2011 07:11AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 00:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Yes, that confused me also. The question asked in the original post is exactly the opposite of the question asked in the thread title.

But the whole problem with the question is that security, stability and personal freedom aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, so the either/or proposition is a misleading dichotomy.

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

Indeed, you Gentlemen are correct. I omitted a critical word:

Would you choose stability & security over personal freedom…OR would you risk the foundations (safe haven, food and shelter) to reach for freedom?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 1, 2011 10:16AM)
I think Payne makes a good point; neither security nor freedom is an absolute. They exist on a continuum.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Dec 1, 2011 10:23AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 07:47, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-11-30 19:40, Payne wrote:
Can anyone ever truly be free?
[/quote]

In this world? Only through Rock and Roll.
[/quote]

I'm more Hip Hop myself... :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 1, 2011 10:24AM)
[quote]On 2011-11-30 18:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Ben Franklin said some wise words about that. I agree with him.[/quote]
As did Kris Kristofferson. And Kris' words must be better because, to the best of my knowledge, Janis Joplin never sang Ben Franklin's.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Dec 1, 2011 10:48AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 06:39, Dannydoyle wrote:

Payne, hardly the point.

[/quote]

Certainly it's the point. One has to define what they mean by "freedom". What it means to an anarchist is totally different than what it means to a conservative, liberal, socialist or libertarion.

It's a word that likes to get bandied about a whole lot. But until one defines exactly what type of "freedom" they are talking about all discussion is pretty much moot.

If one is talking about the freedoms set forth in our constitution then at least one has a framework to work from.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 1, 2011 11:28AM)
I thought since he ws biting at the edges of Franklin that was what he meant.

And yes, "Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose".
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Dec 1, 2011 11:30AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 11:48, Payne wrote:
But until one defines exactly what type of "freedom" they are talking about all discussion is pretty much moot.
[/quote]

Hm. I suppose you're right. But what I mean is specifically this: freedom means a release from unnatural constraints. Such a release can only be temporary, for we all live under some kind of civil order. Rock and Roll (or for Pakar, Hip Hop) provides such a temporary release. I can't think of anything else that does the same.
Message: Posted by: randirain (Dec 1, 2011 12:08PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 01:36, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-11-30 23:42, randirain wrote:
Am I missing something?

You people would rather have security than freedom?

You would rather be safe and be told what to do, instead of taking a risk to be able to live how you see fit?

That's crazy!

Surely I am reading this wrong.

Personally, I will take my chances if it means people staying the hell out of my business.
[/quote]

So do you obey traffic laws and pay your taxes? If you do you are already allowing your freedoms to be impinged.
[/quote]

Those would be laws, and as long as they are voted upon by the people, then it is freedom.
At least as much as freedom can actually be.

It's when laws are forced upon us, that's when freedom doesn't exist.
You know.. much like the TSA taking x-ray nude photos of us at the airport.
I don't remember voting on that, yet I have to do it if I want to fly.

Just because there are laws doesn't mean people are not free.
It's all about how those laws came into effect.

But I am still confused about the topic.
I guess I could look back at it and try figure it out, but I really don't care that much.
So I will just move on.

Randi
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Dec 1, 2011 12:26PM)
Freedom is more than "stability & Security". Freedom is the right to bear arms and overthrow the oppressing government control.

Giving up freedom means giving up self-preservation rights. Most countries that has done this the government killed the protesters, some in the millions and it still is happening today.

One can have personal freedom and stability & security.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Dec 1, 2011 12:39PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 13:08, randirain wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 01:36, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-11-30 23:42, randirain wrote:
Am I missing something?

You people would rather have security than freedom?

You would rather be safe and be told what to do, instead of taking a risk to be able to live how you see fit?

That's crazy!

Surely I am reading this wrong.

Personally, I will take my chances if it means people staying the hell out of my business.
[/quote]

So do you obey traffic laws and pay your taxes? If you do you are already allowing your freedoms to be impinged.
[/quote]

Those would be laws, and as long as they are voted upon by the people, then it is freedom.
At least as much as freedom can actually be.

It's when laws are forced upon us, that's when freedom doesn't exist.
You know.. much like the TSA taking x-ray nude photos of us at the airport.
I don't remember voting on that, yet I have to do it if I want to fly.

Just because there are laws doesn't mean people are not free.
It's all about how those laws came into effect.
Randi
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure you didn't vote on the traffic laws or in the income tax, either.

If anything, I'd reverse your examples. If you don't like the airport security rules, you're free to take other transportation and go about your relatively free life; if you stop paying income taxes, you'll probably go to jail (if you choose to keep earning an income, of course).
Message: Posted by: jugglestruck (Dec 1, 2011 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 12:30, stoneunhinged wrote:

Hm. I suppose you're right. But what I mean is specifically this: freedom means a release from unnatural constraints. Such a release can only be temporary, for we all live under some kind of civil order. Rock and Roll (or for Pakar, Hip Hop) provides such a temporary release. I can't think of anything else that does the same.
[/quote]

I can only think of two instances in my life when I have felt genuinely free - when I spent two weeks walking a mountain range and when I took ecstasy :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Dec 1, 2011 05:02PM)
As I said early on...it depends on your perception of freedom.

Obeying traffic laws I can see no way that as being an infringement on freedom. What if someone is crossing the street and you have a red light and choose to run them down? Oh heck never mind! I still stand by what I said early on... depends on your perception of freedom.

To answer the question as I think it was posed I would havea to say. I would rather be free as I feel there is no security without freedom.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Dec 1, 2011 06:25PM)
If you want maximum security, go to prison.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Dec 1, 2011 07:38PM)
I keep hearing about living in a free country, but it seems like every time I turn around the government is making me pay just to live here.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Dec 8, 2011 05:44AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 20:38, Bill Hilly wrote:
I keep hearing about living in a free country, but it seems like every time I turn around the government is making me pay just to live here.
[/quote]

I dislike taxes as much as the next guy. But as you say you live in a country...I guess that country has roads, bridges, court houses, police protection, all sorts of laws for your good that need peopole to enforce such as enviormental controls and the list goes on. To be honest I have not even scratched the surface. Unfortunately with all the things that need taking care of we need more people to handle them and with that comes corruption and so it goes. The bigger it gets the more complex it gets.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Dec 8, 2011 11:45AM)
[quote]
On 2011-11-30 07:49, panlives wrote:
Would you risk the foundations (safe haven, food and shelter) to reach for freedom?
[/quote]

No. If I were going to, I would have done it when I was in NYC and I'd be on Broadway right now... or the Bowery!
Message: Posted by: critter (Dec 8, 2011 01:48PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 19:25, Steve_Mollett wrote:
If you want maximum security, go to prison.
[/quote]

I believe they're referring to the security of the public, not the inmates. Unless you call getting shanked with a sharpened toothbrush and/or hairy flesh-knife secure. ;)
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Dec 8, 2011 07:42PM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-08 14:48, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 19:25, Steve_Mollett wrote:
If you want maximum security, go to prison.
[/quote]

I believe they're referring to the security of the public, not the inmates. Unless you call getting shanked with a sharpened toothbrush and/or hairy flesh-knife secure. ;)
[/quote]

Not to you and I, to be sure, but the late Richard Speck seemed to feel cozy there.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Dec 13, 2011 09:03AM)
[quote]
On 2011-12-01 06:39, Dannydoyle wrote:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It is often attributed to Franklin (Sometimes even Thomas Jefferson.) but as I recall it is not certain. Not the point though, it fits.
[/quote]

Don't know if he said it first, but the sentence definitely appears in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech on 6 January, 1941.