NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom versus security, for me, is the ultimate contradiction that I struggle to resolve in both my personal life, and my political beliefs. After many years, I believe that I've come close to resolving it personally, but politically I sometimes still struggle. What are your tales of the battle between the desire for freedom and security?

There came a point in my relationship with my husband when I had to make a choice between making a 'permanent' commitment and having a family, and leaving him to pursue a nebulous future. It was a real battle for me. On one hand, I had a man I loved, I had the security of a good relationship, and a shared vision of the future. I was part of a team. I had someone to dig me out when I needed it, and in return, I was there to do the same for him. I could easily envision the rest of my life with him, and it was a pleasant prospect.

However, competing with this possible shared existence, was my desire to explore the unknown. I wanted to travel more, I wanted to throw myself into real political work, work that made a concrete difference. Work that, unfortunately, is generally hard, dangerous, and often unpaid. Not much to build the future of a family on. In my mind, I was at a crossroads. I could choose the man, the family, the security of a semi-certain future, or I could choose to live my life for my beliefs, giving myself completely to the service of others. What that would mean, I knew, was that I had to pursue the ultimate freedom. As Janis Joplin sand, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose". I could hold no ties higher than my work. Not family, not lovers, not friends. If I were to take this road, I could not count on a stable relationship, nor on having children.

In part, I blame this narrow-minded view of my choices on popular societal beliefs and portrayals...glamourising the 'individual' who resists the family in favour of the 'glory'. My relationship with my husband was sometimes bliss, but often quite rocky. I hadn't realised that relationships were so much work! I felt that something was wrong with it...we are taught that love is true, that love is real only if it comes naturally...easily...and it's anything but. I was afraid of compromise...I was afraid that if I choose one path, I could never walk on the other. In short, I was 19, young, and saw things in black and white.

To make a long story a bit longer...I made my choice. And yet, I find that it isn't the choice I thought it was. I didn't trade freedom for security. Life is not built on such absolutes. My life is kind of a mixed economy:). I have a bit of both, and as I grow into my marriage and motherhood, I find that I am more able to expand my freedoms BECAUSE of my security. It's not the radical, 'go out in a hail of bullets defending freedom' that I used to aspire to. But it isn't the tired, defeated, static existence I feared out of ignorance, either.

Freedom versus security, for me, is the ultimate contradiction that I struggle to resolve in both my personal life, and my political beliefs. After many years, I believe that I've come close to resolving it personally, but politically I sometimes still struggle. What are your tales of the battle between the desire for freedom and security?

Well, I'd like freedom from gravity to fly around, but if I wasn't careful I'd float into outer space and die.

... Sorry. :p

Well, I'd like freedom from gravity to fly around, but if I wasn't careful I'd float into outer space and die.

... Sorry. :p

You'd haft to jump fucking high for that to happen

The two needn't be mutually exclusive.

Well I support security over freedom. The reason being is that most freedom is not really that necessary, sure it is nice to have options but truly only a few of them are the correct thing to do. As well I tend towards paranoia and anxiety any way so being free but not secure is very uncomfortable to me.

security anyday. Ill take the government looking in my shoes, taping me at an intersection in Chicago, or checking up on my library books anyday in return for the comfort and peace of mind knowing that I'm much safer. The Patriot Act is the best thing going for this country.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security
-Benjamin Franklin

Freedom leaning ... people like the above poster(holy) (not trying to pick on you) are abundent. Their choices in the long run are suposedly always the "right" one and anything else (including my happyness) is un-nessisary

I dont find it so ... but some people dont see it that way (Libertarian though not so out there as to not think that we have to give up a little to maintain some basic safty for ourselfs and others)

I think that America and Americans at the time were too wary of anything imposing on their freedoms. Human beings need security more than they need liberty and I would prefer to be safe and not live in fear, than to be free enough to "have fun" with prostitutes and shoot up with needles.

I think that America and Americans at the time were too wary of anything imposing on their freedoms. Human beings need security more than they need liberty and I would prefer to be safe and not live in fear, than to be free enough to "have fun" with prostitutes and shoot up with needles.
Out of curiosity, do you support capitalism? Because that, in itself is individual economic freedom

I think that America and Americans at the time were too wary of anything imposing on their freedoms. Human beings need security more than they need liberty and I would prefer to be safe and not live in fear, than to be free enough to "have fun" with prostitutes and shoot up with needles.
Yeah because that is what everyone that wishes to preserve freedom wants ... drugs and prostitutes :rolleyes:

Ok I do tend towards totalitarianism, I do not need much more than the basics to live and only a little more to be happy. Even if given freedom I would probably reject it to choose the path that would provide greatest security and in my mind allow me to be happy for years to come.

To be brief, I support the freedom to secure my own security.

To be not so brief…..

Government, in the form we know it, is a massive protection racket much like what the Mob established. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Human's as a race have strove since its first days to build society, it is what we do. Security is at the forefront of this, the need to be secure drove people to group together for mutual defense and support, a better, more stable life. Freedom on the other hand, can be seen as what destroyed society, when the balance shifted past a specific point and security grew to oppression, the drive to gain freedom overthrew it.

It is a classic Tolerance vs. Intolerance question. In a society, what is and is not to be tolerated? Ideally, in a Democracy or a Republic, this question is to be answered by the people. While a society is on the rise, it tends towards leaning to security and stability, towards intolerance. When it swings towards tolerance; stability and security (the building blocks of society) begin to degrade, the society will fall and a new one will rise again because security once more becomes the want of the people.

Intolerance creates law, law creates civil order, civil order creates civilization.

Tolerance degrades law, which degrades civil order, which degrades civilization.

Now, anyone familiar with the Political compass can easily draw the parallels to Authoritarianism & Libertarianism, Oppression and Anarchy. Obviously, both extremes are destructive to society, neither is any better then the other.

In my mind at least; virtue IS the mean of two vices, the middle ground, the equilibrium of society, is without any doubt the single best choice. Period.

From this, I support the freedom to secure my own security, a way to have a little of both.

Yeah the prostitute and drug thing, that is actually just me taking the extreme end of freedom. I know that most people view freedom as being other things but still those activities sacrifice a lot of security for freedom.

Yeah the prostitute and drug thing, that is actually just me taking the extreme end of freedom. I know that most people view freedom as being other things but still those activities sacrifice a lot of security for freedom.
We have to sacrafice some things to really live

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security
-Benjamin Franklin

I'll let Mr. Franklin speak for me.

Yeah the prostitute and drug thing, that is actually just me taking the extreme end of freedom. I know that most people view freedom as being other things but still those activities sacrifice a lot of security for freedom.

How do you sacrifice security by letting other people sell sex if they want to?

Hehehe...I knew this would turn into a security (safety) versus freedom (of choice) political debate. My definition of security in terms of my original statement is the security of knowing (roughly) what is going to happen in your life versus the freedom (uncertainty) of forgoing ties and compromise in favour of unfettered personal action.

Hehehe...I knew this would turn into a security (safety) versus freedom (of choice) political debate. My definition of security in terms of my original statement is the security of knowing (roughly) what is going to happen in your life versus the freedom (uncertainty) of forgoing ties and compromise in favour of unfettered personal action.
In that case I tend to play the safe bets and work hard at it (does not hurt that what I love to do in my life is a fairly decent safe bet)

Hehehe...I knew this would turn into a security (safety) versus freedom (of choice) political debate. My definition of security in terms of my original statement is the security of knowing (roughly) what is going to happen in your life versus the freedom (uncertainty) of forgoing ties and compromise in favour of unfettered personal action.

Well, I feel I wrapped up the political end of this question well enough but I'll briefly tackle this.

Balance, equilibrium, the middle ground, the sweet spot, the virtuous mean of two vices. Either extreme WILL give you a miserable life, one a miserable life where you KNOW EXACTLY how miserable it will be in the future and the other a miserable life where you can only guess you will be miserable tomorrow. Take the middle road.

Balance, equilibrium, the middle ground, the sweet spot, the virtuous mean of two vices. Either extreme WILL give you a miserable life, one a miserable life where you KNOW EXACTLY how miserable it will be in the future and the other a miserable life where you can only guess you will be miserable tomorrow. Take the middle road.
Agreed. I kick myself now for thinking it was such an either or proposition.

Anyway...I meant people to look at the political side too, so don't take my last comment as a sort of 'hey now, that's not the point...' kind of post:) Just that people automatically think politics as soon as these very loaded words are brought up together.

Hehehe...I knew this would turn into a security (safety) versus freedom (of choice) political debate. My definition of security in terms of my original statement is the security of knowing (roughly) what is going to happen in your life versus the freedom (uncertainty) of forgoing ties and compromise in favour of unfettered personal action.

I don't know that I've ever had a situation where this was really clear. I make decisions based on a number of things, but I've never really thought to myself, "How much freedom am I giving up to do this."

In truth, I only give up freedom when I want to. My boyfriend and I are together because I (and, as far as I know, the same goes for him) don't want the freedom of dating anyone. I only want to date him.

I guess I really don't get the question - maybe I just haven't reached a point where it has become an issue.

Freedom is not having the ability to live a life without consiquences, commitments, or challenges. Freedom is having the ability to choose the "right" choice when it is before you. If you can not choose the right choices in life, even if you want to, then you have lost your freedom.

The irony is that our own wrong choices in life, made when we were free, are what eventually bring us to captivity.

For example: I don't smoke tobacco. I disclipine myself not to start. Therefore, I am still free to smoke or not smoke. However, I have many friends who can no longer choose not to smoke on their own. They are addicted and can't stop even though they know they should. It was their own excercise of "freedom" that led to their captivity; back when the choice was placed before them, back when they truly were free...

I don't know that I've ever had a situation where this was really clear. I make decisions based on a number of things, but I've never really thought to myself, "How much freedom am I giving up to do this."

In truth, I only give up freedom when I want to. My boyfriend and I are together because I (and, as far as I know, the same goes for him) don't want the freedom of dating anyone. I only want to date him.

I guess I really don't get the question - maybe I just haven't reached a point where it has become an issue.
The real panic set in when we started talking about having children (we held off, thankfully, I don't think either of us were ready at that point). But I panicked...I knew that children meant serious commitment...that in essence, I would be permanently committing myself both to my children, and to my husband. I wasn't sure that was what I really wanted. The security was in knowing roughly how my life would play out with a husband and children, versus the 'excitement' of living only for myself.

Freedom is not having the ability to live a life without consiquences, commitments, or challenges.
I understand this now. Back then, things were not as clear :p

I understand this now. Back then, things were not as clear :p

How true that is of all of us.

Well I tend to be cynical anyway. I do not view others as being smart enough to make the best choices. There are too many pregnant teens, drug addicts, and fools out there for me to think well of others. The recklessness of others does negatively impact me because we exist in a society and people who make foolish choices ultimately cost society due to the harm that they cause intentionally or not.

I think that America and Americans at the time were too wary of anything imposing on their freedoms. Human beings need security more than they need liberty and I would prefer to be safe and not live in fear, than to be free enough to "have fun" with prostitutes and shoot up with needles.
security anyday. Ill take the government looking in my shoes, taping me at an intersection in Chicago, or checking up on my library books anyday in return for the comfort and peace of mind knowing that I'm much safer. The Patriot Act is the best thing going for this country.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams
The Ben Franklin quote is already posted.
Seriously, people. Why do you stay in this country, which was founded on the belief that Freedom is the single most important thing anyone can have? I'm not telling you that you should leave, I'm just honestly confused as to how you reconcile your beliefs with the principles that this nation was founded upon, and why you haven't been tempted to seek a nation more suited to those beliefs? I would understand if the issue was something less central to America, but you just seem to me like a Pagan in Iran, or a diehard capitalist in the old Soviet Union.

Well I tend to be cynical anyway. I do not view others as being smart enough to make the best choices. There are too many pregnant teens, drug addicts, and fools out there for me to think well of others. The recklessness of others does negatively impact me because we exist in a society and people who make foolish choices ultimately cost society due to the harm that they cause intentionally or not.
You have yet to prove that specific cause ... yes there are some things that harm society but you make it sound like you know everything that could possibly harm society

What happens if we found out that religon really harmed society? (now this is NOT trying to start a good vs bad arguement for religion so PLEASE dont make it one)
Do you prepose we remove everyone's (including YOUR belief's system) ability to worship as you like?

If something is proven to be negative then it probably should not be allowed. Really it is not hard to determine what could be wrong with prostitution, it is not hard to see what could be wrong with drug abuse, and honestly if the way that I believed in religion was found to be detrimental in a way that I could not logically refute based on my beliefs then I would have to accept the fact that I was believing wrong, I tend to see my religion as an evolution to become better not to become worse.

Well I tend to be cynical anyway. I do not view others as being smart enough to make the best choices. There are too many pregnant teens, drug addicts, and fools out there for me to think well of others. The recklessness of others does negatively impact me because we exist in a society and people who make foolish choices ultimately cost society due to the harm that they cause intentionally or not.


Oh yeah, no doubt. The best thing we can do as a society, and more importantly, as parents, is to teach our children as early as we can about responsibility, choices, consiquences, and above all, the happiness and freedom that comes with making right choices.

We must, however, maintain the liberty to make the choices on our own. It provides no benefit at all for people to be "forced" to do the right things. The very notion is diabolical in it's nature. Mankind must be free to act for themselves. Life would not be worth living with out it.

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

That said, our justice should be reserved for those whose choices affect the choices and lives of others. There should be consiquences, both natural, and enforced by society, for wrong actions.

If something is proven to be negative then it probably should not be allowed.

How exactly do you "prove something to be negative" when the very idea is, itself, subjective? What I think is negative, you may think is positive, and vice versa. What makes you the infallible one that should decide?

Really it is not hard to determine what could be wrong with prostitution,

On the contrary. It is rather difficult to find an objective reason to ban prostitution. It is easy for me to say "Well, I believe sex should be reserved for a committed relationship," but who am I to force that belief upon others?

it is not hard to see what could be wrong with drug abuse,

Drug abuse is obviously harmful to the person involved, and sometimes harmful to those around them.

But what of those who wish to partake of a drug every now and then, with no adverse effects outside health effects that they themselves choose to take on? We allow people to make decisions that harm themselves all the time, why is this any different?

I tend to see my religion as an evolution to become better not to become worse.

Most do. However, people consistently disagree on what is better and what is worse.

Prostitution is found to be psychologically harmful to individuals as it hampers with their ability to bond with others which is harmful to society as it does not help them be a good functional part of society, as well if it is not monitored then it can spread STDs and cause unwanted pregnancies that will also harm society. Given that something is proven to cause harm, it is negative. Another thing is that I am not really impressed by quotes from the founding fathers they were rather foolish in my opinion and I will admit that the current model of America works but only because the more extreme freedom lovers were excluded from its design.

Prostitution is found to be psychologically harmful to individuals as it hampers with their ability to bond with others which is harmful to society as it does not help them be a good functional part of society, as well if it is not monitored then it can spread STDs and cause unwanted pregnancies that will also harm society. Given that something is proven to cause harm, it is negative.
Hmmmm...sounds like you're saying UNMONITORED prostitution is negative. So why not legalise it, make it safe, have certain places for it, regular STD testing and drug councilling? You'll never get rid of it. People have tried for thousands of years. It's not called the world's oldest profession for nothing...

In a time of crisis, a time of War, Freedoms should be given up for security. Once the conflict is over, then those freedoms returned.

it is not hard to see what could be wrong with drug abuse,

The trouble here would be to define what "drug abuse" is

Is it smoking a joint avery saturday or so ?
Is it Injecting heroin into your body ?
Is it smoking tabbacco ?
is it drinking beer ? or Whisky ?
Is it eating chocoalte ? Or fast food every meal ?
Is it watching 6 hours of TV every day ?
Is it playing EQ 10 hours a day ?


What is more detrimental to yourself ? Or to society ?

I firmly believe that alcohol has one of the the worst impact of all drugs in all society (counting live wrecked, women beaten, child abused, car accident,...) however it's legal in all western countryes to drink and get drunk, and it is even customary for many youth to get drunk at special occasion.
In another way, a nice wine or a good beer is a great pleasure that many people would not give away easily. And some people have dedicated their lives to make the best alcohol possible.

So should we trade liberty of drinking alcohol to increased security ? And woul d it work : the prohibition timed showed that people were deprived of liberty AND security with that issue

Anyway, we can have both freedom and security, if we work it in a clever way.
Our politicians try to sell security by asking us to pay with freedom, but that's a hijack, baby.

In a time of crisis, a time of War, Freedoms should be given up for security. Once the conflict is over, then those freedoms returned.

Who define the time of war in modern times ? Who defines when the conflict is over ? who insures that the freedoms are returned ?

be careful when engaging in that path, cause if you do not define any limits beforehand that can be easily overdone

I said it was psychologically harmful, and that is a quality that can not be altered. It does not help society as much as monogamous relationship as it does not help peoples psychological needs, it does not produce offspring, and it will cause some minor spread of STDs even if it is from client to customer. Prostitution is bad for society and even though it would be extremely difficult to get rid of that does not mean that it should be promoted or even allowed. Yes, I tend to see the government as the institution that is responsible for the overall safety of all of its citizens and I tend to see that things are black and white, not necessarily based on a 1000 year old book though.

I tend to see that things are black and white, not necessarily based on a 1000 year old book though.

That's the trouble : nothing in real life is black and white !

we're living in a shade of grey

I said it was psychologically harmful, and that is a quality that can not be altered. It does not help society as much as monogamous relationship as it does not help peoples psychological needs, it does not produce offspring, and it will cause some minor spread of STDs even if it is from client to customer. Prostitution is bad for society and even though it would be extremely difficult to get rid of that does not mean that it should be promoted or even allowed. Yes, I tend to see the government as the institution that is responsible for the overall safety of all of its citizens and I tend to see that things are black and white, not necessarily based on a 1000 year old book though.
And some of us never seen the whole “black and white” thing … life is not an is or an is not proposition its all about the grey area

Well I see life as a white black thing. Now if you look at the big picture it may look grey but as you focus in you can see the white and the black. Perhaps there is something bad about my ideas but I think the good outweighs the bad and that ultimately the good can be focused upon and improve, while the bad can be reduced.

I said it was psychologically harmful, and that is a quality that can not be altered. It does not help society as much as monogamous relationship as it does not help peoples psychological needs, it does not produce offspring, and it will cause some minor spread of STDs even if it is from client to customer.
This is a view from the moral majority back benches I suppose. How is monogamy supposed to be psychologically satisfying when the majority of prostition's customers are married men? If monogamy satisfied them psychologically then there would be no real amount of prostitution. Producing offspring is not the be all and end all of psychological satisfacton. It is satisfying yes, but it is not everything.
STD's are a consequence of the marginalisation of prostitution, not of its existence.

Prostitution is bad for society and even though it would be extremely difficult to get rid of that does not mean that it should be promoted or even allowed. A very narrowminded and unconsidered view. Go and study the history of humanity and you will see that prostitution has always been part of society, and has only really been disaproved of since the Victorian era.
Are you opposed to all forms of commerce? The only thing that anyone can claim to belong to them, without doubt, is their own body. What they choose to do with their property you have no right whatsoever to decide. It is up to them. The only time that you may be ewntitled to an opinion on this matter is if it directly impinges on your rights and freedoms, otherwise it is none of your business.

Yes, I tend to see the government as the institution that is responsible for the overall safety of all of its citizens and I tend to see that things are black and white, not necessarily based on a 1000 year old book though.

I agree that you see things in black anbd white, but I disagree that the government is responsible for the overall safety of its citizens. The government is responsible for providing conditions under which the citizens may live safely if they so choose. It is not responsible for imposing any particular view of what is safe upon its individual citizens. I would not want the government saying I can not leave my house after sunset as it is more dangerous. Would you?

I would not want the government saying I can not leave my house after sunset as it is more dangerous. Would you?

To paraphrase Iggy Pop,

'Gimme Danger'.

To paraphrase Iggy Pop,

'Gimme Danger'.

On the other side of the argument: Janis Joplin (the version I like anyway)

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' else to lose".

But I side with Iggy.

Well accepting a prostitute is a sign of psychological underdevelopement as the customer usually does so as a means of self-deception and not with full mind of the entirety of what he is doing, otherwise he would get a divorce or something. As well I care little about commerce, my concern is that everyone has protection, the basics of survival, and the opportunity to improve upon themselves, therefore I support armed forces and police, the economics of supplying everyone with what they need as their unlimited wants are usually stupid and do not actually help them become happy, as well as education and research as those improve peoples minds. As well I would not care too much about a curfew, I am not a person with very many wants anyway and I usually am at home before dark.

Well accepting a prostitute is a sign of psychological underdevelopement as the customer usually does so as a means of self-deception and not with full mind of the entirety of what he is doing, otherwise he would get a divorce or something. As well I care little about commerce, my concern is that everyone has protection, the basics of survival, and the opportunity to improve upon themselves, therefore I support armed forces and police, the economics of supplying everyone with what they need as their unlimited wants are usually stupid and do not actually help them become happy, as well as education and research as those improve peoples minds. As well I would not care too much about a curfew, I am not a person with very many wants anyway and I usually am at home before dark.
I understand the military and police funding
But how in ANY way does freedom = “supplying everyone with what they need as their unlimited wants”

Well that is the purpose of capitalist economics. Have you never taken a macroeconomics class? I reject the idea of satisfying unlimited wants and that is an idea that is anti-capitalist and therefore anti-economic freedom.

Who define the time of war in modern times ? Your Government. if you don't like that, or don't agree with it, either move or don't re-elect them.
Who defines when the conflict is over?Your Government. If you don't like it or don't agree, either move or don't re-elect them.
who insures that the freedoms are returned ?Your Government, if you don't like it or don't agree with that, either move or don't re-elect them.
be careful when engaging in that path, cause if you do not define any limits beforehand that can be easily overdoneand you can spend the time defining those limits, and guess what, not everyone will be happy in the end anyway. During times of crisis, more trouble can be stirred up while people are bickering, in the case of Terrorists, who have no uniform of any country, who will use any means and not adhere to any "Code" such bickering will only serve their purpose. when people should be united, they will be divided.
During WWII alot of freedoms were "suspended" because of the war. Japanese were interred because of their race, many resources were diverted from Civilian use to our military personnel overseas, international travel was restricted, and the government agencies were infringing on alot of personal freedoms to insure there were no more spies. and the people of the US pulled together and guess what. When the war was over, those suspended freedoms were returned. Privacy was once more respected, Japanese citizens were given their freedoms, and resources given back. who took them away? the Government. Who gave them back to the people? The Government.

Freedom fries, but security bakes.

A compromise between both. In political and personal situations.

We just need to be armed. Look at Switzerland, an SG90 in almost every closet, along with several hundred rounds of ammunition. They are very free, and very secure.
But America has some deep psych issues to deal with before we could do that. Namely 14 year old morons that don't realize that high school is not the pinnacle of thier lives.

Baked food is usually better for you. Baked chips are better for your health than fried and because we are ordering in bulk I say that we buy baked because a long life is better than a short but mildly pleasurable one.

Well accepting a prostitute is a sign of psychological underdevelopement as the customer usually does so as a means of self-deception and not with full mind of the entirety of what he is doing, otherwise he would get a divorce or something. As well I care little about commerce, my concern is that everyone has protection, the basics of survival, and the opportunity to improve upon themselves, therefore I support armed forces and police, the economics of supplying everyone with what they need as their unlimited wants are usually stupid and do not actually help them become happy, as well as education and research as those improve peoples minds. As well I would not care too much about a curfew, I am not a person with very many wants anyway and I usually am at home before dark.

SO you are basing your opinion on what others should want on:
1. Macroeconomics which deal with the relations of states and large scale economic factors, not individuals
2. Your own personal desires and requirements which you would impse on others.

I think that it might be better to look at microeconomic factors, such as satisfaction of personal requirements, and to consider that we are not all perfect cognitive clones of yourself, and that we as individuals have many diferent desires and interests.

Baked food is usually better for you. Baked chips are better for your health than fried and because we are ordering in bulk I say that we buy baked because a long life is better than a short but mildly pleasurable one.
Thats fine that you think like that

I personaly take a middle ground here

thats the amazing part of puting freedom over security (in some areas) because you have the ability to freely choose which you find more worth while

"La liberté n'est pas une marque de yogourt."
"Liberty is not a brand of yogurt."
- Pierre Falardeau (Canadian filmmaker / foul-mouthed columnist)

Most of you dont really know how few rights you have in the US. True it is better than countries like china and north korea. I well admit that after all i have traveled a lot but something you should ask your self is who well guard the guards. There are some in the US that do attempt to do this. The greatest guards in our countries are poeple some of us hate quiet a bit but are hackers people like them though if you hadnt notice dont end up in the news quiet often even though there are millions of them in the US. Some of them do get got but why isnt there cases made public information. There are some horrifying truths in the US but that is true in many countries but not all. Even with poeple pulling a file here and there from goverment facilities it is still not enough really the true guards of our guards is the national accounting office which makes every goverment organization sooner or later make a complete report on every computer pencil anything that cost money and those of you that are smart enough and are able to piece together that information I give you a high five. One of my biggest examples that happened recently to me is i bought some things from an electronic store and was standing in line the guy in front of me was buying a satlite radio for his car do you know what the goverment wants each person to do that buys one give that company your name address phone number and anything else besides your social security number. That is just wrong. So i told the guy6 of local place that i know of that well get him a radio for free no GPS crap no problems all he needs is 65 dollars and it worked. I know now your saying thats what cuased it right wrong on several accounts 1st the guy who opened that secret store opened it becuase the goverment was requiring that information 2nd the company that sells those doesnt own that satalite it is owned by Nasa our goverment in other words and do they have to buy massive amounts of money for Use no becuase of free communications over the inernet so that company is getting piad with almost no major over head 3rd Who the heck garuntees that company wont pay off the local goverment officials which wont cost much in order to get that information to be used as business information. Now your saying companies dont do that is a bunch of bull casinos keep masive records on ever person that enters there casino with acurate pictures and descriptions. If any of you have ever broken into any major retialers computer system before you would be quiet surprised on whats in there. The Us just takes away our rights in a diffrent fashion. For thhose of you that have been into the goverments documents and systems and have looked in the right places you know what i am talking about. PS sorry about spelling errors.

I said it was psychologically harmful, and that is a quality that can not be altered.

Actually, it can. The reason that it is psychologically harmful is that most people doing it are forced into it, either by economic hardships or by abusive pimps, etc. On top of that, there is the social stigma.

If prostitution were a job entered into willingly by all who did it, there would be no psychological harm. It really wouldn't be any different from deciding that you want to be a waiter.

Yes, I tend to see the government as the institution that is responsible for the overall safety of all of its citizens and I tend to see that things are black and white, not necessarily based on a 1000 year old book though.

Anyone who sees things as black and white is either very naive or simply immature.

Edit: Arrogance can also lead to "black and white" thinking.

Prostitution is bad for the customer psychologically, as well saying that black and white thinking is necessarily a flaw is black and white thinking. The reason that I think this way is probably because I tend to think in absolutes, and actually I am very good in science and pretty decent in math, two subjects that have nothing subjective about them and I tend to look at everything from that perspective. Finally what want do I force on everyone? Because security is what we were talking about, the basics of survival is what everyone needs to live and the ability to improve oneself is something that people need as well. Life is ultimately a quest to become enlightened and to find the truths of existence, this includes morally, scientifically, and psychologically. Someone who fails to do this is a threat to society due to their lack of understanding(fools are detriments) .

Prostitution is bad for the customer psychologically,

How exactly will you prove this?

as well saying that black and white thinking is necessarily a flaw is black and white thinking.

Is arrogance automatically a flaw? Is naivete? Not necessarily. Some people believe these things are good. Oh, wait, that's subjective again - guess you don't think that can possibly be valid.

The reason that I think this way is probably because I tend to think in absolutes, and actually I am very good in science and pretty decent in math, two subjects that have nothing subjective about them and I tend to look at everything from that perspective.

If you honestly think that there is nothing subjective in science, you aren't very good at it. Same goes for math. Both depend on the subjective axioms you choose at the beginning. In science, though we strive for objectivity, interpretation is subjective based on what each person tends to see in it. The best way we have found to try and lower the impact of this subjectivity is to have a lot of people interpret it, in the hopes that it becomes more objective - but this is not absolute.

Finally what want do I force on everyone?

Your own views of what is right and wrong so that you can personally feel "secure" in your correctness. Never mind that you are being incredibly arrogant in suggesting that you are absolutely correct.

Life is ultimately a quest to become enlightened and to find the truths of existence, this includes morally, scientifically, and psychologically. Someone who fails to do this is a threat to society due to their lack of understanding(fools are detriments) .

Guess what then? Every single person is a threat to their society, because you won't find a single person on the planet who has become enlightened and found all the truths of existence. Way to condemn every human being as a fool.

I dont really care if prostitution is legal or not but if it is made legal that it just be monitored and taxed like any other business But you tyalked about the opporunity to improve ones self without poeple goign in and out of our goverments computer form timew to time we wouldnt even be having this conversation. The goverment never wanted the inernet out into this great big world of ours tell poeple brought it out. I mean the Us goverment has some of the finest Aeordynamic composites in the world and poeple are fighting every day to get those look at the raptor fighter jet i am not asking for its stealth tech i can understand hiding that but realease its composite designs tot he world you know. Information is constanly hidden. Agian who well guard the guards.

None of you know how much information is out there that our goverment has.
The patriot act werll take away so many freedoms it isnt even funny but in the end it wont affect me ill be leaving in one month and wont ever be coming back. If you think i am naive take a look around you the Us is in an econimic struggle and isnt recovering any time soon. The US Uses it super computers to track ever one of those beutiful cell phones and radios pretty much anything witha GPS in in it the US tracks. Talk about a severe infringment on my rights.

I have read a book written by a doctor of psychology that did say that prostitution was bad for the customer and that is in a way proof. As well I can often be very arrogant. Science is not subjective, scientists can be subjective, but there is nothing subjective about e=mc^2, it is an absolute and science is about finding absolutes and knowing absolutes, of course we can not always be certain what the absolute is but that is what we are trying to find. Yes, everyone is a fool and we need to help them improve however we can, less foolish people are safer to a society and the goal is enlightenment. I know that enlightenment must of course be balance by safety and that it is better to live to see another day than to risk everything for a small gain.

A shady lane breeds mud someone once told me.

And a little four one one the latest issue of scientific america shows the Universal constants arent constant every where.

And a rule in PHSYCOLOGY is that every person is diffrent for some poeple prostitution could actually be good for them mentally after all it releaves stress increase your brians mitochondrias ability to repair its self.

Ps sorry about spelling errors

They wouldnt be risking anything anyway if people would get over there morality issues and let stem cell research go which well then lead to Bio Immunization chip and neuro transmitter Technology.

Ok but science does look for objective truths that can usually be expressed mathematically ok now stop being so nitpicky. As well prostitution does carry disease, runs the risk of unwanted pregnancies in many cases, and is bad because of the fact it alters a man's ability to bond because prostitutes can offer a judgement free environment and are a fantasy that customers will never get outside of prostitution which does not help these customers have fulfilling long-term relations with women as well I think the mental benefits you stated are probably not simply for prostitution but for other sex as well. As well I do not understand the big deal with stem-cell research either, I mean isn't south korea doing it without causing any real harm to anyone?

They wouldnt be risking anything anyway if people would get over there morality issues and let stem cell research go which well then lead to Bio Immunization chip and neuro transmitter Technology.
[puts on Paranoia hat] and also chips to gather more information on your habits and perhaps even your very personal information. It can also open the doors to tailor made virues. [takes off Paranoia hat] The problem is that you are opening the door to a whole new world and there are alot of people out there that can and will use any new discovery for the wrong things. Lets look at some of the things done when new discoveries were made before regulations were put in place.

Atomic energy. (Good) Almost unlimited power, (Bad) almost unlimited destruction.
The Internet. (Good) Interaction on an International scale. (Bad) Viruses and hackers can now bring down countries instead of just businesses, Identities stolen and Intellectual Theft are not technically illeagal.

And since we cannot effectively enforce who uses what, and how. I think Bush is being more cautious before opening that Pandora's box. this is my opinion however.

I think that Bush is being stupid. The fact is that the technology will be discovered and only by being the first will we be able to reap the most benefit. If the box is going to be opened then let us be the group to prosper.

I have read a book written by a doctor of psychology that did say that prostitution was bad for the customer and that is in a way proof.

Under the current system, of course it is. Would it be under a different system?

Science is not subjective, scientists can be subjective,

...and who carries out the scientific method?

but there is nothing subjective about e=mc^2, it is an absolute and science is about finding absolutes and knowing absolutes, of course we can not always be certain what the absolute is but that is what we are trying to find.

Of course it is what we are trying to find. But by the scientific method and the logic therein, we will never actually achieve it. We will always have to assume that there is more to figure out (yes, even about energy, matter, and the speed of light) and that everything we think is correct may very well be wrong.

Yes, everyone is a fool and we need to help them improve however we can, less foolish people are safer to a society and the goal is enlightenment. I know that enlightenment must of course be balance by safety and that it is better to live to see another day than to risk everything for a small gain.

That is rather subjective. Some would say that enlightenment is the ultimate goal and that one should risk their safety or even their life to try and attain it. What makes you so sure you are correct?

They wouldnt be risking anything anyway if people would get over there morality issues and let stem cell research go which well then lead to Bio Immunization chip and neuro transmitter Technology.

How exactly will stem cell research lead to these things?

Look I do not care about the individual scientists they are not the integral part of my argument, yes human beings are imperfect I admit that, science however is based on the idea of finding objective truth and stresses the ability to be objective and to find absolute patterns. As well that thing I mentioned about being safe is part of my argument, this is freedom vs safety, to risk everything is not safe and could even bring one further from enlightenment.

Look I do not care about the individual scientists they are not the integral part of my argument,

In other words, "I can't make my argument without assuming that science exists apart from the scientists who carry it out, so I'm going to ignore the fact that this assumption is incredibly flawed."

kk.

As well that thing I mentioned about being safe is part of my argument, this is freedom vs safety, to risk everything is not safe and could even bring one further from enlightenment.

Or, it could bring one even closer. In fact, many philosophies are completely based on the idea that one absolutely must risk everything to find enlightenment.

Oh look! That means it is subjective again!

Ok I separate science from the scientists just like I separate religion from the religious people. I am trying to isolate the pure concept from all the foolishness that goes along with every human endeavor, what I am doing is not really flawed reasoning at all. As well risking everything to find enlightenment is not very secure, I claimed I wanted security not freedom. I am not contradicting my own beliefs I am contradicting your beliefs on what I mean. Ok as well I made the logic of that clear when I said that risking everything can often be counter-productive.

As well, that is a certain theory of enlightenment, there are many. Security demands that we test the safest and the safest are those that can take years and years to complete the entire transition.

As well, that is a certain theory of enlightenment, there are many.

You mean it isn't absolute??!!?!?!?!?!?!

You mean that this isn't a black and white situation?!?!?!?!?!?

There are many views on it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

But I thought you said everything was black and white!!!!!!

Head explodey

Ok I separate science from the scientists just like I separate religion from the religious people. I am trying to isolate the pure concept from all the foolishness that goes along with every human endeavor, what I am doing is not really flawed reasoning at all.

The "pure concept" you speak of is a human endeavor, unless you are claiming that it was not humans who devised the scientific method...

As well risking everything to find enlightenment is not very secure, I claimed I wanted security not freedom.

Yes, you did. You also claimed that everything is black and white and that security, to you, was having a government keep people from doing things that you think are harmful, regardless of the fact that others don't find them to be so.

I am not contradicting my own beliefs I am contradicting your beliefs on what I mean.

I never said you were contradicting your own beliefs. I am simply demonstrating that, unless you think you are completely infallible, this isn't a black and white situation. There are many different viewpoints on it, and none can claim there own as absolutely right.

I never backed down from my black and white theory. The simple fact is that the many paths to enlightenment are not really many paths, there is one but only with trial and error can we find it. I also say that many of my ideas are correct because I have some proof that they are correct and because I was raised to believe as such. What proof do you have that I am wrong? As I said before I do not really contradict myself, I am the type who benefits from security and I function well. No matter what you can not disprove the black and white idea, even if an area looks grey the truth is that the information available is lacking.

You mean it isn't absolute??!!?!?!?!?!?!

You mean that this isn't a black and white situation?!?!?!?!?!?

There are many views on it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

But I thought you said everything was black and white!!!!!!

Head explodey
Lol you deserve this
http://geek.upwardthrust.us/roflcopter.gif

I never backed down from my black and white theory. The simple fact is that the many paths to enlightenment are not really many paths, there is one but only with trial and error can we find it.

This makes two completely indefensable assumptions. One is that we will ever find this "one, true path." The other is that all human beings are the same and thus will take the same path. You even contradict this later when you point out that you personally benefit from security and function well - suggesting that others may not.

I also say that many of my ideas are correct because I have some proof that they are correct and because I was raised to believe as such. What proof do you have that I am wrong?

None. You also have no proof that I am wrong. This is the very reason that we can't look at things as black and white, but must always be examining them.

Any human being who claims to have the absolute truth is either lying, or wrong. Thus, to human beings, the truth will always be grey.

I never said that we would find the truth, I said we should look for it. Also all humans are basicly the same the differences at birth are really minor. Everything is actually grey because we do not analyze it close enough, with enough analysis some truths should eventually come out despite the flaws with humanity.

I have countered most of your points and found them rather pointless and nitpicky. What logic backs up your theory that I can not refute?

I have countered most of your points and found them rather pointless and nitpicky. What logic backs up your theory that I can not refute?

That's really cute, but you haven't actually countered anything. You have yet to really argue with any point I've made at all, instead picking side issues that have nothing to do with the point.

Meanwhile, your own words have clearly demonstrated that you don't actually believe you have the absolute truth. That said, why should everyone else give up their freedom to provide you with what you personally consider to be security that you know to be most likely flawed?

I usually try to read the whole thread before I post, but I just couldn't this time.

We don't need freedom?!?!? Seriously? I mean, you would never get hurt if I knocked you out and fed you through a tube so long as you were in a protective metal casing and I rolled you once in a while. How would that be worth it? And this crap about most people know what the right thing is? What if someone decides the right thing is Catholicism or Muslim or Atheism? What if someone decides that it's safer for everyone else if people who look like you are denied basic rights? On the first page someone quoted Ben Franklin and it's absolutely true. Most people who say they don't need freedom have never been denied it.

No I believe that I am mostly right with the security thing and that ultimately we need to take it safe to find enlightenment and in that way deny freedom. As we become more enlightened then more freedom can of course be given but only because we understand that freedom really does not give any freedom at all. I do not believe that I have disproven myself with my arguments, you may think I have but I don't, as well that post was a moment of arrogance but you really are nitpicky.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
It's easy to say that when you already have security, Mr Franklin.

Well the freedoms I need tend to be a bit limited. Security is more important than freedom, of course we can not deny all freedom or anything but security is more helpful to us in our daily lives then freedom.

Well I tend to be cynical anyway. I do not view others as being smart enough to make the best choices. There are too many pregnant teens, drug addicts, and fools out there for me to think well of others. The recklessness of others does negatively impact me because we exist in a society and people who make foolish choices ultimately cost society due to the harm that they cause intentionally or not.

And are those pregnant teens caused by sexual repression (less repressive countries tend to have lower incidence of pregnancy, less repressive meaning both educating people and not making them feel like it's taboo)? Why does drug addiction and crime increase with prohibition (hello 1920's in the US)? And perhaps the fools are those(1) who would can't understand that personal choices of other people(2) needn't be regulated by them(1) unless it affects them(1)?

Well the freedoms I need tend to be a bit limited. Security is more important than freedom, of course we can not deny all freedom or anything but security is more helpful to us in our daily lives then freedom.

If other people get to decide which essential freedoms you need, how do you know whether you will get the same ones you feel you need?

No I believe that I am mostly right with the security thing and that ultimately we need to take it safe to find enlightenment and in that way deny freedom.

Important words bolded. People believe a lot of things.

I ask again, why should others be asked to live by your beliefs?

I do not believe that I have disproven myself with my arguments, you may think I have but I don't,

Never mind the incredibly clear contradictions that I have pointed out, eh?

as well that post was a moment of arrogance but you really are nitpicky.

How are you going to reach your supposed ultimate black and white reality without being nitpicky? If you are really going to find the absolute on every subject, nitpicking will be absolutely necessary.

Case in point:

Is it ok to kill another human being?
Black and white answer: No
Actual answer by anyone with any rationality: Sometimes.

Is it ok to kill another human being simply because you feel like beating on something and they are convenient?
Black and white answer: No (based on above)
Answer taking into account all details: No

Is it ok to kill another human being who is trying to kill you and your family and the only way you and your family can possibly surive is to kill them?
Black and white answer: No (based on above)
Answer taking into account all details: Yes.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~Benjamin Franklin

But then again, what did Benjamin Franklin ever do for us? :rolleyes:

I doubt the pregnancies were caused by repression so much as irresponsible parenting. As well our choices affect everyone elses existence. By being foolish we hurt society as a whole through unnecessary costs. I mean choosing not to work may be exercising freedom of choice but I will suffer from the reduced property values created by your presence, the increased taxes required to deal with the loss of a working citizen and the welfare of that now non-working citizen, and finally your employer will have to replace you which wastes time and money trying to find a candidate, interview them and instruct them on how to do the job properly.

I doubt the pregnancies were caused by repression so much as irresponsible parenting.

Are these two mutually exclusive? Could extreme repression not, itself, be irresponsible parenting?

Black and white is rational!!! Did you not understand that grey means that there is not enough information. Killing someone is grey, killing a criminal is white, killing an innocent is black. Gee whiz no wonder you think that my posting betrays that I disagree with myself. You do not know what I am saying whoever you are that I forgot to quote.

I doubt the pregnancies were caused by repression so much as irresponsible parenting. As well our choices affect everyone elses existence. By being foolish we hurt society as a whole through unnecessary costs. I mean choosing not to work may be exercising freedom of choice but I will suffer from the reduced property values created by your presence, the increased taxes required to deal with the loss of a working citizen and the welfare of that now non-working citizen, and finally your employer will have to replace you which wastes time and money trying to find a candidate, interview them and instruct them on how to do the job properly.

You're right. And your freedom to deny me sex makes me have to waste time looking for someone else to ream, so I think it should be declared that you are not permitted to say no, so my time is not wasted. And what if I decide that people with your viewpoint negatively affect my quality of life.

I doubt that it is extreme repression because of how common it is for members of the groups to get pregnant to commit other crimes as well. It is obviously not enough repression. As well human beings are similar the reason why we think we need freedom is because we grew up with it in abundance or we grew up with an overly oppressive and evil dictator, repression is wrong if evil that much is true.

Well excuse me responsibility is always a burden on the irresponsible. There is nothing wrong with responsible freedom, but too many are irresponsible, as well responsible freedom is inherently secure because security is an important value for the responsible. A couple with a child does not have as much freedom and must be more secure but does that mean the child is bad?

I doubt that it is extreme repression because of how common it is for members of the groups to get pregnant to commit other crimes as well. It is obviously not enough repression. As well human beings are similar the reason why we think we need freedom is because we grew up with it in abundance or we grew up with an overly oppressive and evil dictator, repression is wrong if evil that much is true.

Overly oppressive? You're talking about taking away basic freedoms and you're saying that overly oppressive is bad? What is overly oppressive? Shoving a pole up your ass to make you stand up straight? Because according to you freedom to not work should be illegal, freedom to choose your job is bad, freedom to decide what goes into your body is bad, freedom to choose sexual partners is bad. What exactly qualifies overly oppressive? Who decides if these dictators are evil? Surely you agree with oppression. You've said so.

Well excuse me responsibility is always a burden on the irresponsible. There is nothing wrong with responsible freedom, but too many are irresponsible, as well responsible freedom is inherently secure because security is an important value for the responsible. A couple with a child does not have as much freedom and must be more secure but does that mean the child is bad?

You still don't show how someone's freedom to take drugs affects your security? Or any of these things you want to take away?

Well killing people for nothing at all is evil. Many dictators do this due to paranoia, selfishness, and racism. I do admit that I may sound bad and that I may be overstating my own position but really as a society we need to seek the best thing for all members of that society and too many people seek their own benefit at the cost to others. I mean we don't want for everyone to be given the freedom to kill whomever they want, freedom does have limits and ultimately is a responsibility that not everyone should carry for the good of everyone.

Well killing people for nothing at all is evil. Many dictators do this due to paranoia, selfishness, and racism. I do admit that I may sound bad and that I may be overstating my own position but really as a society we need to seek the best thing for all members of that society and too many people seek their own benefit at the cost to others. I mean we don't want for everyone to be given the freedom to kill whomever they want, freedom does have limits and ultimately is a responsibility that not everyone should carry for the good of everyone.

Yes, but you're talking about taking away the freedom of some people you don't agree with to benefit you. How are you any different?

Drugs inhibit the ability to think clearly and in many cases this comes at a cost to society. Drinkers drive drunk and can not be stopped in many cases until after they have killed someone, smoking caused problems due to second hand smoke that hurts others, cocaine is highly addictive and is harmful for that reason alone, and most drugs cause health problems that have to be taken care of somehow. I do not think people deserve the option to kill themselves, suicide hurts society and can encourage others to take the same path, most drugs are harmful and can hasten someone's death therefore being suicide. As well it takes money and manpower to deal with these dead bodies anyway.

Black and white is rational!!! Did you not understand that grey means that there is not enough information. Killing someone is grey, killing a criminal is white, killing an innocent is black. Gee whiz no wonder you think that my posting betrays that I disagree with myself. You do not know what I am saying whoever you are that I forgot to quote.

So all things are not black and white then. Gotcha. Some things are grey. Only if you have every possible detail that could possibly have any effect whatsoever on the question can you possibly find objective truth. Of course, we rarely if ever have every possible detail, and most of our questions are about things in general, not about very specific cases. Thus, most of our world exists in the grey.

I think that if we sacrifice freedom for important security that we can all be happier. Only in recent times(recent for human history) has freedom taken its epic, godlike status.

No you did not get me. These things are grey because we do not know enough to see the black and white. Grey is an absence of knowledge therefore inability to make judgement. It may not be traditional black and white but the fact that I think everything can be divided into its black and white makes my thoughts black and white.

Drugs inhibit the ability to think clearly and in many cases this comes at a cost to society. Drinkers drive drunk and can not be stopped in many cases until after they have killed someone, smoking caused problems due to second hand smoke that hurts others, cocaine is highly addictive and is harmful for that reason alone, and most drugs cause health problems that have to be taken care of somehow. I do not think people deserve the option to kill themselves, suicide hurts society and can encourage others to take the same path, most drugs are harmful and can hasten someone's death therefore being suicide. As well it takes money and manpower to deal with these dead bodies anyway.

So do many medications. So does being overly tired from working two shifts or having a sick child. Driving under the influence is already illegal. Suicide hurts society? HA. Yes, much more than taking away people's right to choose. :rolleyes: It also takes money and manpower to enforce all these rules you're proposing. Is that the argument against them then? Your suggestions are ridiculous. What if someone decides that you don't deserve the freedom to espouse your views because you might convince someone to think like you? Don't worry, I'm not suggesting such a thing. You're not making a good enough argument to convince anyone anyway.

As well we know enough about most decisions to know that they are black or white or even black and white. The fact is that most of the posters here do not realize that the decisions that they defend are usually predominantly bad and therefore bad decisions. Only black and white truly exist and through our cleverness we can create a world that is white or mostly so(it can be hard to get rid of the black).

I think that if we sacrifice freedom for important security that we can all be happier. Only in recent times(recent for human history) has freedom taken its epic, godlike status.

Only in recent times was freedom an issue because individual freedom triumphed until the last few thousand years when governments managed to widely focus power.

What evidence do you have that most people would be happier without the freedom to decide what happens to their own body? If people are so much happier with less freedom why do people keep overthrowing tyrannical governments?

As well we know enough about most decisions to know that they are black or white or even black and white. The fact is that most of the posters here do not realize that the decisions that they defend are usually predominantly bad and therefore bad decisions. Only black and white truly exist and through our cleverness we can create a world that is white or mostly so(it can be hard to get rid of the black).

You can't be an adult. I'm sorry, I never say this, but you just can't be. No one with any experience actually thinks there is only black and white. Give me an example of a black and white issue.

"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."
- Mary Shafer, SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer, NASA Dryden

Of course not. Only God himself could, you people hold freedom so highly that it is difficult to break through. I am only arguing because I love to argue. Anyway as time goes on it will become easier to enforce the rules. The only reason why it would be difficult now is because they seem illegitimate in your eyes. Most changes usually come with a cost anyway and most of my rules would require little to enforce after a few generations and re-educations. Explain to me why you deserve to have sex with anything on the earth, why drugs that are bad for you should be permitted. Do you disagree with parenting on the idea that it limits a child's freedom, do you disagree with morality as it limits an adults freedom. Man was not meant to be free, this cult of freedom may have brought some good ideas but overall is negative, we have responsibilities to ourselves and to this world and guess what? Having fun is not a responsibility it never has been having fun is only a privelege created by our success, we have success because our ancestors gave up freedom in order to build society and if we continue to give up our freedom, we can make a better world like we are supposed to.

Of course not. Only God himself could, you people hold freedom so highly that it is difficult to break through. I am only arguing because I love to argue. Anyway as time goes on it will become easier to enforce the rules. The only reason why it would be difficult now is because they seem illegitimate in your eyes. Most changes usually come with a cost anyway and most of my rules would require little to enforce after a few generations and re-educations. Explain to me why you deserve to have sex with anything on the earth, why drugs that are bad for you should be permitted. Do you disagree with parenting on the idea that it limits a child's freedom, do you disagree with morality as it limits an adults freedom. Man was not meant to be free, this cult of freedom may have brought some good ideas but overall is negative, we have responsibilities to ourselves and to this world and guess what? Having fun is not a responsibility it never has been having fun is only a privelege created by our success, we have success because our ancestors gave up freedom in order to build society and if we continue to give up our freedom, we can make a better world like we are supposed to.

If you really like to argue, I suggest you educate yourself so as to make more reasoned discussions. Your points are mostly unsupported by both historical evidence and by your reasoning. You're unclear about what you're specifically trying to say. All in all the only thing that is clear is that you wish to 'win' the discussion. Winning is fine if you can actually do it, but to keep getting up and punching Mike Tyson in the gut when you're fifty pounds doesn't make you look cool or tough. It makes you look unprepared and unrealistic.

Of course not. Only God himself could, you people hold freedom so highly that it is difficult to break through. I am only arguing because I love to argue. Anyway as time goes on it will become easier to enforce the rules. The only reason why it would be difficult now is because they seem illegitimate in your eyes. Most changes usually come with a cost anyway and most of my rules would require little to enforce after a few generations and re-educations. Explain to me why you deserve to have sex with anything on the earth, why drugs that are bad for you should be permitted. Do you disagree with parenting on the idea that it limits a child's freedom, do you disagree with morality as it limits an adults freedom. Man was not meant to be free, this cult of freedom may have brought some good ideas but overall is negative, we have responsibilities to ourselves and to this world and guess what? Having fun is not a responsibility it never has been having fun is only a privelege created by our success, we have success because our ancestors gave up freedom in order to build society and if we continue to give up our freedom, we can make a better world like we are supposed to.
On a slight tangent, what political ideology do you hold to that holds views such as this?

No you did not get me.

Actually, I did. You apparently didn't read what I wrote.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that we never have all the information.

Even the examples you used are silly

"Killing Criminals. White."

Really? So if we catch a child stealing gum, we should just shoot them in the head?

"Killing Innocents. Black"

Really? What if killing a single innocent person would save the world? Would it be black then?

The only thing you said that made complete sense was:

"Killing. Grey."

These things are grey because we do not know enough to see the black and white.

And that is the world we live in. We live in the world where we don't know enough to see the absolutes (assuming they exist).

NASA needs some lessons on safety considering that one of their spacecraft exploded due to some careless errors in design. As well my black and white attitude is simply because I believe in the idea of an absolute truth. I also believe that most of the arguments based on drugs and prostitution do not help the cause of free speach as those things are considered by most respectable people to be wrong in most situations.

Oh, and, by the by, my friend, God was the ultimate believer in freedom. The Bible is all about free will. God is the only being with the ability to truly prevent you from doing anything he doesn't want you to and yet he lets you have the freedom to decide. God disagrees with you.

I am a totalitarian since someone was curious. As well absolutes exist and they can be determined through logic. I did think and maybe I am not quite as black and white as I have been advertising but there are right decisions and wrong decisions and those are usually constant and if not constant it is because the good is greater than the bad. Ultimately though if we could assign values good and bad could be calculated or at least that is what the crazy me thinks that has been single-handedly arguing against freedom for a long time now.

God also said that unbelievers go to hell. Going to hell is not in a person's best interest. I have said and still say that people are stupid and that is why they need to be denied freedom. I mean it is also true that the good and virtuous go to heaven as well.

NASA needs some lessons on safety considering that one of their spacecraft exploded due to some careless errors in design.

What a flippant comment that is. Do you really think that everything we can discover with hindsight must have been "careless"? The design problems in the shuttle were hardly due to someone being careless. It is really easy to look back on something and say "This was the problem. Why didn't you catch that ahead of time?" It's infinitely harder (and humanly impossible) to catch all the problems ahead of time.

NASA needs some lessons on safety considering that one of their spacecraft exploded due to some careless errors in design. As well my black and white attitude is simply because I believe in the idea of an absolute truth. I also believe that most of the arguments based on drugs and prostitution do not help the cause of free speach as those things are considered by most respectable people to be wrong in most situations.

So basically anyone who disagrees with you is not respectable. Jesus ate with prostitutes. He seemed to think prostitution was none of your business so long as you don't partake.

God also said that unbelievers go to hell. Going to hell is not in a person's best interest. I have said and still say that people are stupid and that is why they need to be denied freedom. I mean it is also true that the good and virtuous go to heaven as well.

Do you honestly think that being forced to act in a certain way makes one good and virtuous? Or is it doing so without being forced that makes one a good person?

Well another reason for me to create my own religion. I still do not agree with that idea even if it means disagreeing with Jesus. What is everyone else anyway? Is everyone else here libertarians?

God also said that unbelievers go to hell. Going to hell is not in a person's best interest. I have said and still say that people are stupid and that is why they need to be denied freedom. I mean it is also true that the good and virtuous go to heaven as well.

But you cannot be forced to be good or virtuous so what you are suggesting helps no one. You cannot force someone to believe in God which God also said. Not even God forces someone to believe or to follow His rules. God felt that people must be allowed the freedom to find Him on their own so you are saying God is wrong. You're not helping your argument.

What was it that I read somewhere in that book people like to read all the time, I think it's called the Bible, Judge not, lest ye be judged. You know what that means? It means that if you condemn people, you yourself will be condemned. Judgement is the job of God and none other. Only God knows the absolute truth and thus only God is a position to act as Judge.

If you are forced you are not good. However, so long as evil is acceptable it will tempt the weak. I am proposing the elimination of evil so that way the future can be dominated by good.

Well another reason for me to create my own religion. I still do not agree with that idea even if it means disagreeing with Jesus. What is everyone else anyway? Is everyone else here libertarians?

You're totalitarian. We're logical.

You claim to have a better handle on the Bible than Jesus. Okey-dokey. Have fun with that.

If you are forced you are not good. However, so long as evil is acceptable it will tempt the weak. I am proposing the elimination of evil so that way the future can be dominated by good.

You can't eliminate evil. It's impossible. In fact, to try is in and of itself evil.

By the way, the point is to overcome what we consider evil. If there is no evil to overcome, what have you done to make you 'good'?

No I meant really what is everyone else. Besides, allowing torture to continue is evil, all evil hurts everyone around it. That is why evil must be eliminated. Honestly though I am not really a good christian and probably technically not one at all.

No I meant really what is everyone else. Besides, allowing torture to continue is evil, all evil hurts everyone around it. That is why evil must be eliminated. Honestly though I am not really a good christian and probably technically not one at all.

I call troll or child. Either way, I'm not really interested anymore.

Freedom and security is a balancing act. and like any balancing act there will be times when Freedom will be given and security taken away and Security given and Freedom taken. but like a balance, it will eventually even back out. to expect both a high degree of Freedom and A high degree of Security is just plain selfish.

Freedom versus security, for me, is the ultimate contradiction that I struggle to resolve in both my personal life, and my political beliefs. After many years, I believe that I've come close to resolving it personally, but politically I sometimes still struggle. What are your tales of the battle between the desire for freedom and security?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security
-Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security
-Benjamin FranklinYou know, people spout this alot now. but they still don't answer the question. Freedom or Security.

Are you saying we should open our borders, let people in without appling for citizenship?

Are you saying we shouldn't activly hunt out terrorist in our country and wait for them to attack?

Are you in full agreement that 9/11 was unavoidable because to get that information would have infringed on the privacy of the individual?

Are you saying background checks shouldn't be performed when on job applicats, Gun applicants or even when that job is in a "sensitive" area because they infring on a persons privacy?

are you saying Child Molesters and other former convicts shouldn't register where they live and the community does not have the right to know because it infringes on their privacy?

state your position please.

I say in times of crisis, Certain freedoms should be suspended until the crisis is over, then returned to the people. We, the People, need to trust in our Government enough that they will look out for us. If you do not have that trust, then find another government that does have that trust.

and before you shout, "one cannot run but must change!" realize in a time of crisis, there cannot be cries for Change.

Sinuhue, you wanted to know if i prefered security over freedom. The girl i was 10 years ago prefered security. She needed it to allow to to deal with other issues and continue to grow. The woman i am today likes security, sure, but much prefers now the freedom. She has the tools, the experience, the wisdom to deal with the unexpected and in so doing, appreciate the experience much more than she would have unprepared.

Sinuhue, you wanted to know if i prefered security over freedom. The girl i was 10 years ago prefered security. She needed it to allow to to deal with other issues and continue to grow. The woman i am today likes security, sure, but much prefers now the freedom. She has the tools, the experience, the wisdom to deal with the unexpected and in so doing, appreciate the experience much more than she would have unprepared.
interesting viewpoint. but now a question, not an attack but a question.

as the person now, one who resolved those issues, (and I hope they were satisfactually resolved.) you preferre freedom, but what of the other children with similar issues. or even worse ones (not knowing and not asking for details of your situation.) would you deny them their security because you preferre your freedom?

You know, people spout this alot now. but they still don't answer the question. Freedom or Security.

Shouldn't the answer to that question be case-specific?

Are you saying we should open our borders, let people in without appling for citizenship?

No, but we might make it easier for those who present no apparent danger to be able to get it.

Are you saying we shouldn't activly hunt out terrorist in our country and wait for them to attack?

This doesn't even follow from a freedom v. security discussion.

Are you in full agreement that 9/11 was unavoidable because to get that information would have infringed on the privacy of the individual?

I doubt many people believe that the privacy of the individual is more important than preventing crime - that's why we have warrants and such. Of course, when we start passing laws to bypass any such control, that's when it gets ugly...

Are you saying background checks shouldn't be performed when on job applicats, Gun applicants or even when that job is in a "sensitive" area because they infring on a persons privacy?

Of course not. First off, they don't infringe on a person's privacy. When someone puts in such an application, they are agreeing to have that background check. Secondly, there is a rational basis to demonstrate that such a check makes the general citizenry safer.

are you saying Child Molesters and other former convicts shouldn't register where they live and the community does not have the right to know because it infringes on their privacy?

If we don't believe someone to be rehabilitated, they shouldn't be let out of jail. If we do believe them to be rehabilitated, they should have all the same protections under law as ourselves.

I say in times of crisis, Certain freedoms should be suspended until the crisis is over, then returned to the people.

Most do. The question becomes, who decides when we are in crisis and who decides which freedoms should be suspended?

We, the People, need to trust in our Government enough that they will look out for us. If you do not have that trust, then find another government that does have that trust.

Interesting, considering that the US government was founded on the idea that the people should never, ever trust their government.

and before you shout, "one cannot run but must change!" realize in a time of crisis, there cannot be cries for Change.

This is silly. By that logic, all anyone would have to do to have complete power over the people is orchestrate crisis at all times. Sometimes, change is what is necessary to end a crisis.

You know, people spout this alot now. but they still don't answer the question. Freedom or Security.

Are you saying we should open our borders, let people in without appling for citizenship?

Are you saying we shouldn't activly hunt out terrorist in our country and wait for them to attack?

Are you in full agreement that 9/11 was unavoidable because to get that information would have infringed on the privacy of the individual?

Are you saying background checks shouldn't be performed when on job applicats, Gun applicants or even when that job is in a "sensitive" area because they infring on a persons privacy?

are you saying Child Molesters and other former convicts shouldn't register where they live and the community does not have the right to know because it infringes on their privacy?

state your position please.

I say in times of crisis, Certain freedoms should be suspended until the crisis is over, then returned to the people. We, the People, need to trust in our Government enough that they will look out for us. If you do not have that trust, then find another government that does have that trust.

and before you shout, "one cannot run but must change!" realize in a time of crisis, there cannot be cries for Change.

Are you completely unaware of what he was talking about? Obviously yes. But allow me to clarify.

He was not talking about chaos. He was talking about personal liberties that are to be ensured by the government and state. To get a better reference of what he was talking about, read the Declaration of Independence or any literature from John Locke which influenced Franklin. It is explicit about what the role of the state is. Locke's writings influenced Benjamin Franklin heavily.

So the reason it "confuses" you or makes itself vauge, is simply because you need to know what the founders' understood the purpose of government in their lives. So get off the can, quit the whining, and learn more. This information is out there. Just because you don't think it is, doesn't make it not exist.

interesting viewpoint. but now a question, not an attack but a question.

as the person now, one who resolved those issues, (and I hope they were satisfactually resolved.) you preferre freedom, but what of the other children with similar issues. or even worse ones (not knowing and not asking for details of your situation.) would you deny them their security because you preferre your freedom?

I don't think Chocolate was talking about the same type of security and freedom that you are. I think that the discussion there was a more personal one. Thus, Chocolate choosing freedom cannot, in any way, deny others security, as this security v. freedom choice is one made by the individual.

Shouldn't the answer to that question be case-specific?Oh I agree it should be case specific but the question is more of a blanket one. besides, people throw that quote out as an answer without really answering the question.


No, but we might make it easier for those who present no apparent danger to be able to get it. and how can we be sure of those who present no apparent danger. some of the 9/11 people were found to have met the others who would've been turned away. inother words, they didn't present any apparent danger yet were part of the plot to bring down the WTC.

This doesn't even follow from a freedom v. security discussion.Sorry, maybe I should've been more specific then, hunting terrorist on US Soil. the intesified background checks. Some of the Provisions of the Patriot act that infringes on privacy. not overseas but domestic hunts.

I doubt many people believe that the privacy of the individual is more important than preventing crime - that's why we have warrants and such. Of course, when we start passing laws to bypass any such control, that's when it gets ugly...Agreed, but to get a warrent there has to be probable cause, thus the information about some of the 9/11 people still wouldn't have been obtained till after the event.

Of course not. First off, they don't infringe on a person's privacy. When someone puts in such an application, they are agreeing to have that background check. Secondly, there is a rational basis to demonstrate that such a check makes the general citizenry safer.and there is 'rational basis' for some of the suspension of freedoms. and background checks for some areas are pretty intestive.

If we don't believe someone to be rehabilitated, they shouldn't be let out of jail. If we do believe them to be rehabilitated, they should have all the same protections under law as ourselves.So you are agianst regestering Child molesters and rapists.

Most do. The question becomes, who decides when we are in crisis and who decides which freedoms should be suspended?the government, because they are the ones we put in charge to protect and monitor those freedoms.

Interesting, considering that the US government was founded on the idea that the people should never, ever trust their government.really, where was that mentioned. The Government was designed so that it was inefficent. it was designed so that no one person can take over and become the KING of AMERICA.

This is silly. By that logic, all anyone would have to do to have complete power over the people is orchestrate crisis at all times. Sometimes, change is what is necessary to end a crisis.depending on the Crisis. Right now, it's terrorism and granted it is an amorphous enemy that has no real form, but by slowly eating away their power base, then we cripple them to the point where the crisis is over. basically if the Terrorists were smart, they would go into hiding. OBL, if he truly believed in his cause would turn himself in and America would then go back to it's normal state of watchfulness. OBL would be a martyr or at least an Imprisoned symbol, and when, not if, when America's security is back to Pre 9/11, then the terrorists would strike again. but because OBL didn't turn himself in and the actions of the terrorists (and Saddam) we're prolonging it untill the percieved threat was over.

I mention Saddam because the reports given to the US about WMD's were the same reports given to Saddam, he truly did think he had WMD's until the hours before the attack. Had he not tried to force his scientists to prep programs for WMD and just quietly bidded his time, he would still be in power and we will have President Kerry in the White House.

And as for generating Crisis after Crisis... you know that won't work for the Media will pick it up and the public informed.

I don't think Chocolate was talking about the same type of security and freedom that you are. I think that the discussion there was a more personal one. Thus, Chocolate choosing freedom cannot, in any way, deny others security, as this security v. freedom choice is one made by the individual. if that is so, then I applogize for misinterpreting the post.

the first post (after looking at it again) does touch on both Politically (government infringing on people's freedom) and Personal (will you turn your home into a fortress)
sorry I assumed this thread was about the Government and the Freedoms of the person. Not the personal choice of Freedom and Security that would only affect the individual.

and how can we be sure of those who present no apparent danger. some of the 9/11 people were found to have met the others who would've been turned away. inother words, they didn't present any apparent danger yet were part of the plot to bring down the WTC.

Any system is going to have mistakes. The only way to keep all the bad people out is to not let anyone at all in, ever.

Agreed, but to get a warrent there has to be probable cause, thus the information about some of the 9/11 people still wouldn't have been obtained till after the event.

*shrug* Same as above. Unless we are going to search every house, every day and tap every single phone and go through everyone's mail, some things will fall through the cracks.

and there is 'rational basis' for some of the suspension of freedoms. and background checks for some areas are pretty intestive.

Some, not all.

So you are agianst regestering Child molesters and rapists.

Not really, but I can understand the argument against it. I really think that if we still believe them to be dangerous, we shouldn't let them out into society in the first place.

the government, because they are the ones we put in charge to protect and monitor those freedoms.

And if they don't do so?

really, where was that mentioned.

Read anything at all about the founding fathers. Read any of their letters. Look at the fact that their entire system was built upon a revolution borne out of distrust of government.

The Government was designed so that it was inefficent. it was designed so that no one person can take over and become the KING of AMERICA.

Yes, and these things were necessary because people should inherently distrust their government. Otherwise, we fall into apathy.

And as for generating Crisis after Crisis... you know that won't work for the Media will pick it up and the public informed.

Yes, because we really have a fair and independent media. LOL

Any system is going to have mistakes. The only way to keep all the bad people out is to not let anyone at all in, ever.so we agree then that borders need to be patrolled and illegal aliens stopped from coming into the country? (i've seen some argue for open borders...)

*shrug* Same as above. Unless we are going to search every house, every day and tap every single phone and go through everyone's mail, some things will fall through the cracks. the current system works (not talking about the additional provision since 9/11)

Some, not all.and those are being amended I think... or last I hear a while ago anyway. could be wrong tho. the Patriot act was born out of haste. so of course it's rough. I do believe tho, that they are refining it. Again it will take time.

Not really, but I can understand the argument against it. I really think that if we still believe them to be dangerous, we shouldn't let them out into society in the first place. and here is my conflict also. those let out may truly be trying to walk the honest path, and if people know about their past, it will forever haunt them and place an unfair burden on them... on the other hand, Would I want my neices and nephews in arms reach of such a preditor...

And if they don't do so? don't re-elect them. simple. not easy mind you... then there is the call to remove them from office. California did it (granted on a small scale, but they did it.)

Read anything at all about the founding fathers. Read any of their letters. Look at the fact that their entire system was built upon a revolution borne out of distrust of government.I've always interpreted those as a distrust of Monarchies where one person holds all the power. which is why they took President and not King/Ruler/etc. but that is my interpretation... so I won't argue this point.

Yes, and these things were necessary because people should inherently distrust their government. Otherwise, we fall into apathy.no, it was designed so that no one person can take control. which is why, as much as I like Pres. Bush, I am worried about the removal of term limits. not that I don't trust the current Government, but it removes one safeguard that may protect the people from future Presidents.

Yes, because we really have a fair and independent media. LOLFair or not, Independant or not, they will find the story... better than bloodhounds really. :D

'Well, what do you think of all this, Mr. Hat?'

so we agree then that borders need to be patrolled and illegal aliens stopped from coming into the country? (i've seen some argue for open borders...)

the current system works (not talking about the additional provision since 9/11)

and those are being amended I think... or last I hear a while ago anyway. could be wrong tho. the Patriot act was born out of haste. so of course it's rough. I do believe tho, that they are refining it. Again it will take time.

and here is my conflict also. those let out may truly be trying to walk the honest path, and if people know about their past, it will forever haunt them and place an unfair burden on them... on the other hand, Would I want my neices and nephews in arms reach of such a preditor...

don't re-elect them. simple. not easy mind you... then there is the call to remove them from office. California did it (granted on a small scale, but they did it.)

I've always interpreted those as a distrust of Monarchies where one person holds all the power. which is why they took President and not King/Ruler/etc. but that is my interpretation... so I won't argue this point.

no, it was designed so that no one person can take control. which is why, as much as I like Pres. Bush, I am worried about the removal of term limits. not that I don't trust the current Government, but it removes one safeguard that may protect the people from future Presidents.

Fair or not, Independant or not, they will find the story... better than bloodhounds really. :D

Felons have some liberties suspended (like voting) forever. The constitution is not designed to protect people who do not respect the law (your child molesters argument). It is, however, designed to protect the innocent citizen even if it means occasionally losing some security and in some cases let some criminals get away with it. It is not and was not okay to invade the privacy of the individual even if it prevents a catastrophe like September 11. It could have been avoided and, hopefully, will be avoided without invading the privacy of the individual. How? Hmmm... let's see Federal Marshalls would have covered it. Or a gun in the cockpit with the pilots. Or a properly-secured cockpit. Or a million other little changes that require no violation of civil liberties.