Seeing the debates here have really stimulated my thinking and I have been reading up on things like the social contract and the founders original ideas on the role of government. I would like it if we could have a well thought out conversation (though I know it usually turns into E blasting)
The topic deals with something that seems to be taking high importance; Freedom and Security.
Which do you think is more important your personal freedoms or your personal security.
My thought is we trade some of our freedoms to obtain security (i.e. government) and there is a balance. Which do you feel is more important and why?
Discuss
In my opinion, it's impossible to value one over the other. They are intrinsically related; as you mention, a balance.
Obviously both are needed. However, whereas my sister says "I say they put cameras everywhere--I have nothing to hide", I wouldn't go that far...
As far as freedoms, every action has an equal and oppsite reaction. If that reaction affects someone else, it's their freedom you are infringing on. People like to say "let me do what I want", but too many don't consider how that might indirectly affect someone else.
As for what the "founders" meant/wanted:
1) They're not here to ask for clarifications, so most anything you find is purely speculation (and ALWAYS with a personal slant).
2) Would you rather be living in 1776? I wouldn't. Things evolve, why not society? Would you rather be living in ancient Egypt? They thought they had it pretty good too...
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
That last quote is about what I was getting at. So what freedoms do we trade for the securities that we have? We end up with social programs etc, what are the thoughts on those?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Benjamin Franklin wrote:"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”
Agreed.
Personal freedoms can give you personal security.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:That last quote is about what I was getting at. So what freedoms do we trade for the securities that we have? We end up with social programs etc, what are the thoughts on those?
I'm not sure how you are equating most social programs to these concepts?
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
the problem is everyone has a diffrent viewpoint of what they feel is right and we live in a society that has one person or one small group of persons that makes that determination for everyone. so no matter what you do or what you pic someone will always feel its wrong or gone to far or not far enough.
for me its like lunch at work, if im hungry, i pick a reseraunt and go. if someones else is going to lunch with me, we can come to a decision relativel easy, when 5 or 6 of us are all going to lunch its a huge debate on where to go and someone usually winds up giving in. you can't please everyone all of the time. and it seems in this day and age people forget that and want to be pleased all the time.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Truth,,,from consequences wrote:With lotsa guns!
That is what Franklin believed...
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
The question isn't anarchy vs slavery, so don't anyone propose 'chaos in the streets vs total govt control'.
This is going to end upna big waste of space thread I think. Someone will lay a cleverly thought out trap, and then spring it on some unsuspecting freedom advocate
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
OHV notec wrote:Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:That last quote is about what I was getting at. So what freedoms do we trade for the securities that we have? We end up with social programs etc, what are the thoughts on those?
I'm not sure how you are equating most social programs to these concepts?
The parallel I draw to social programs is this: In order for the government to provide the services they do they have to restrict the freedoms of other people. For example the changes made during the Kennedy/ Johnson era, the new society. It set up things like welfare etc. In order to qualify for welfare, or govt assistance, esp in PA you have to give up personal freedoms to get government aid. You become dependent on the government to provide your sustenance, housing, and transportation.
I am originally from CT, I didn't live in the best area, but nowhere near poverty, just blue collar. Since I have moved outside of reading PA, I have seen countless examples of someone who made dumb choices and had kids before they graduated high school. In order to qualify for the healthcare for their child, keep getting food stamps and housing assistance, they cannot make more than $250 a week. if they do they lose countless thousands in govt aid. This perpetuates a cycle where people who do not have much education to begin with, end up in a cycle where they are in poverty, want to make a change, but cannot risk losing govt support, so they lose their ambition to achieve financial independence.
This is just one example, but obviously there are many more, from laws restricting what you can do while getting public assistance to threatening losing FDIC status if you do not loan to minorities (for banks).
The reason I started this thread isn't to start an ambush or anything of the sort, just to have a frank discussion on both sides about the issues. I think people begin to think the government is supposed to always be there to help, whereas it was originally designed solely to protect the freedoms and securities of its people. Live liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It isn't a guarantee, but an opportunity.
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:That last quote is about what I was getting at. So what freedoms do we trade for the securities that we have?
I would say none.
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote: The parallel I draw to social programs is this: In order for the government to provide the services they do they have to restrict the freedoms of other people.
Like which freedom?
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:For example the changes made during the Kennedy/ Johnson era, the new society. It set up things like welfare etc. In order to qualify for welfare, or govt assistance, esp in PA you have to give up personal freedoms to get government aid. You become dependent on the government to provide your sustenance, housing, and transportation
You're misconstrued. One, it was called The Great Society, it was program to make improvement in our infrastructure specifically for education, medical, transportation, to name a few. Also, I'm not seeing the correlation that you are trying to bring.
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:This perpetuates a cycle where people who do not have much education to begin with, end up in a cycle where they are in poverty, want to make a change, but cannot risk losing govt support, so they lose their ambition to achieve financial independence.
This reminds of how the military works. Get people while in a age where they are the most naive, gullible, vulnerable like high school. Give them a flag and lie, you got a soldier. The moment you become vocal and decide to not become obedient to the US government's military, you will be labeled with a "dis-honorable discharge" nomenclature and out you go. With that title, you will loose all your government benefits and social programs that a soldier initially signed for being "honorable."
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:The reason I started this thread isn't to start an ambush or anything of the sort, just to have a frank discussion on both sides about the issues. I think people begin to think the government is supposed to always be there to help, whereas it was originally designed solely to protect the freedoms and securities of its people. Live liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It isn't a guarantee, but an opportunity.
Personally, I think you did this thread because you don't like social programs and now you want to use "Freedom & Security" rationale to justify your distaste. It is fine and perfectly alright, as that is exercising your first amendment right, but couldn't you just skip the bull$hit and just start by saying:
"I hate socialism and all the aspect of it, blah,blah,blah" and just get strait to the point? And if and when you do come out bluntly saying this, think about that every citizen that lives in the US has used a aspect "socialism," including you.
Something for you to ponder on.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Goodwrench,
Thanks for your opinions. I guess considering the other thread you would be right to assume. I was looking for peoples thoughts. I did not interject any personal opinions until asked. The whole military thing I will give you, it is just like any organized religion in that case. It is not relevant to what I asked, but touche sir.
I do not know your personal situation, since you are online when we have these chats, but I work in marketing and I get to meet people every day who want to achieve but are held back by their reliance on the aid the government gives them. That is what brought the thought to my mind. I do not know if you have any personal experience in the subject, or if it is academic or whatever. If you personally know and associate regularly with people in these situations, please enlighten me on your thoughts behind their trade off of personal freedom to achieve their lives goals versus their dependency on government.
The point again is freedoms versus securities. Please let me know what you think, non quoting, what your thoughts are.
So what about the ones that join after high school?
I was far from a "fall inline" Marine, I guess there for did not get promoted as fast, but Some of the brass liked the fact that I am, and this is a quote, Honest and Earnest.
What lie was I given?
Back on topic.
In WI, along with IL, only two states in the union to do this, there is a out law of concealed carry, thus giving up a right for "security".
I could move, and think about it almost every day, but I want to finish school first.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:
I do not know your personal situation, since you are online when we have these chats, but I work in marketing and I get to meet people every day who want to achieve but are held back by their reliance on the aid the government gives them. That is what brought the thought to my mind. I do not know if you have any personal experience in the subject, or if it is academic or whatever. If you personally know and associate regularly with people in these situations, please enlighten me on your thoughts behind their trade off of personal freedom to achieve their lives goals versus their dependency on government.
I'm in the advertising and media section, so you and I are some what in the same field. But I do not sell over the phone (unless company X or us could not get transportation to close deals), we have companies contracting us to advertise for them, whether it being radio, T.V., print, to fly overs. Come in May, I've been doing this nearly 4 years. And I assure you that the companies ie, Nissan, Sony, Winn/Dixie, Lockhead Martin, etc are not worried to what you are bringing to the table here. What they do worry is the market getting sour enough to which if it is a smart move to advertise or not, or if a small ad will be enough to get their message out. Their only involvement with government and us, is the FCC. What some of our customers do chant is the amount of tax right-off, or tax-breaks that they can can get away with.
But "
trade off of personal freedom to achieve their lives goals versus their dependency on government," that is non-existent where I'm at.
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:The point again is freedoms versus securities. Please let me know what you think, non quoting, what your thoughts are.
Like I said before, I'm not a proponent to loose any freedom in order "to get more security" BS. Which is why I'm not a fan of "Patriot Act," or Nixon's love of wire-tapping using AT&T. I and like many others don't have nothing to hide. But knowing how the US works, it is the framing that an individual should be worried about.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:So what about the ones that join after high school?
Again, easier to enlist the gullible.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:What lie was I given?
"Out defending our "freedom." "Defending us." "Serve your country" to name a few.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Thats not why most people in my age enlist my friend.
But to say, that in evacuation a city\base from a hurricane, I was not doing my part,
@!#$ you.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Thats not why most people in my age enlist my friend.
The more popular ones are;
1. To feel patriotic.
2. To get guidance in life.
3. Wanted a way out from current standing.
4. Receive benefits from the government when done being active duty.
Whether you fall in any of those or not, I really don't care. But to say you are there for us, is ridiculous at best.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:But to say, that in evacuation a city\base from a hurricane, I was not doing my part.
So you think you did your part while being in camouflage suits? Here is a thought, you can do the same in jeans, t-shirt and still do the same good deed through a volunteer program. In the end, it is more rewarding as you're not doing it as a job, but you're doing it on your own will. Lastly, you're not doing it under a government payroll, but instead doing it in good faith and good will for mankind.
And this is going totally away to Mike D.'s original thread, apologies for that. But that's all I way say on this.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Winter is getting to you to hey!?
I am feeling the itch to drive the goat.
any maybe site in my ar
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Thats not why most people in my age enlist my friend.
The more popular ones are;
1. To feel patriotic.
2. To get guidance in life.
3. Wanted a way out from current standing.
4. Receive benefits from the government when done being active duty.
Whether you fall in any of those or not, I really don't care. But to say you are there for us, is ridiculous at best.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:But to say, that in evacuation a city\base from a hurricane, I was not doing my part.
So you think you did your part while being in camouflage suits? Here is a thought, you can do the same in jeans, t-shirt and still do the same good deed through a volunteer program. In the end, it is more rewarding as you're not doing it as a job, but you're doing it on your own will. Lastly, you're not doing it under a government payroll, but instead doing it in good faith and good will for mankind.
And this is going totally away to Mike D.'s original thread, apologies for that. But that's all I way say on this.
they are there for us. no one has a specific date set in stone when or if @!#$ ever hits the fan. so you have a milliatary that is ready to protect you when it is needed. just because it may not have happened yet doesn't mean they arn't there for you. why not go punch some babies and kick some kitties.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Even if taking away freedoms does create security, thats to high a price to pay.
When it comes to the point where freedoms would have to be sacrificed, thats where it needs to end, and where personal responsibility needs to take over.
I would rather live in a world that was less safe but I was unrestricted in how I choose to protect myself.
But then natural selection would start happening and we cant have that... and my lord the government giving up power?
Its not about your security, it about having power over you and they use the security as a lie to get you to fall for it.
That last sentence is the 100% unfiltered truth weather you choose to believe it or not.
