NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple question. If you had been living in a country that was engulfed in chaos would you give up your freedom and support a totalitarian government that offered security?

Out of all the people that I have had heard comment on this, I think Helen Keller said it best:

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure. "

I'd get the fuck out of Dodge.

If I couldn't then......probably yes. I'd like to think I'm idealistic and all, but I imagine if there was a very real chance of me getting killed (not this shadowy terrorist threat thing we have going at the minute) I would give up my freedom for security.

Uhhhhh, I feel so dirty

Simple question. If you had been living in a country that was engulfed in chaos would you give up your freedom and support a totalitarian government that offered security?
On the face of it no

Though I could wish for more options ... there are possibily sacrafices I were willing to make without going all the way

Depending on the situation

This isn't just a no, this is a Hell no!

Goodness gracious me, no I wouldn't. I'd try to find my own way out before things got too awful.

I'd get the fuck out of Dodge.

If I couldn't then......probably yes. I'd like to think I'm idealistic and all, but I imagine if there was a very real chance of me getting killed (not this shadowy terrorist threat thing we have going at the minute) I would give up my freedom for security.

Uhhhhh, I feel so dirty
At least you would be an honest craven weasel. ;)

Good quote from Helen Keller. A couple more (from memory):

Robert A. Heinlein: "It may be better to be a dead lion than a live jackel, but it's better still to be a live lion, and usually easier."

Joseph Heller (from Catch 22):
"Nagley (20 years old, arguing with 106-yr-old man in brothel): But don't you see, it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees?
106-yr-old man: No, you've got it backwards. It's better to live on your feet than to die on your knees."

Ben Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither."

And I'll point out that they usually get neither. Just ask all those Germans who fell to marching right along with their Fuhrer only to find that they weren't German enough after all. Or all those commie haters who still got dragged before HUAC in the 50s and had their careers and lives ruined. Or even Robespierre who died on his own guillotine.

EDIT: Bottom line: Anyone who says, "I'll protect you," get away from that person as fast as you can.

At least you would be an honest craven weasel. ;)

Ay, sir; to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand.;)

Some. I think the PATRIOT Act is as close to the right tradeoff at the moment as we're going to get. A Palpatine-esque overthrow of Democracy (just bought Episode III:p ) would be dangerous, not to mention unnecessary.

I'd try and get out.
In the real world, if the US fell into anarchy, I'd flee to Canada (easy to get to, only a few hours drive to the border) and from there to England or Israel.

But I wouldn't give up my freedoms.

Depends.. on how bad the chaos was, for one. The Patriarch of the Greek Church has taken over the government of Greece and Cyprus on different occasions, when chaos was the alternative. That was seen as necessary after WWII, for example, because the government was in disarray. So I suppose I'd go along with something like that if it were obvious that the change would be short-term, say, the Pro Temp taking over the White House if our executives had been killed somehow, etc. Of course, in that case, you'd expect him to simply replace the President, rather than rewrite the system, but I'd go along with something similar, in spirit.

Simple question. If you had been living in a country that was engulfed in chaos would you give up your freedom and support a totalitarian government that offered security?

no. because the totalitarians may be offering, but they won't ever actually provide any sort of meaningful security. just a lot of executions, mostly of people like me.

no. because the totalitarians may be offering, but they won't ever actually provide any sort of meaningful security. just a lot of executions, mostly of people like me.

There might be a downside as well.;)

I'd get the fuck out of Dodge.

If I couldn't then......probably yes. I'd like to think I'm idealistic and all, but I imagine if there was a very real chance of me getting killed (not this shadowy terrorist threat thing we have going at the minute) I would give up my freedom for security.

Uhhhhh, I feel so dirty

Aye, this sounds pretty much right. I think I'd rather have heavily armed police marching down the street than heavily armed rebels. Of course, depending on the regime, the difference can be difficult to discern. And, of course, once the threat is gone, I'll start working to make sure the new dictator is forced to liberate the country again- peacefully, of course. Always peacefully.

Ay, sir; to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand.;)
True, true. An honest person is worth more than anything else in this world. So, once the resistance and underground railroad are properly organized, I will be certain to put you on the list of potential defectors (3rd class, meaning that you will have to be kidnapped because you can't be trusted not to turn us in to your totalitarian masters, but at least you'll acknowledge this about yourself and not blame us for kidnapping you).

I'm positive I'd become a freedom fighting renegade zit on the ass of the aforemtnioned all-pervasive state. Security is grossly overrated.

That's a no from me. Interesting concept though

<snip>

Fair enough. I'd better start learning something that makes me too valuable to kill.

I'd jump in a car and head for the middle of my great brown land where no-one can find me anyways. Failing that, I'd launch a full on invasion of New Zealand single-handed. There ain't enough of them that ain't sheep to hold me back. :mp5:

I'd try and get out.
In the real world, if the US fell into anarchy, I'd flee to Canada (easy to get to, only a few hours drive to the border) and from there to England or Israel.

But I wouldn't give up my freedoms.
Hell, I'm already planning such an escape route merely on the basis of how annoying the US has become.

Canada and then just Canada because I'm lazy -- unless the plaid makes me look fat, then Ciao, Italia!!

Fair enough. I'd better start learning something that makes me too valuable to kill.
It depends on where you are. If you're in the US, larnin' ain't worth nuthin'.

Hell, I'm already planning such an escape route merely on the basis of how annoying the US has become.

Canada and then just Canada because I'm lazy -- unless the plaid makes me look fat, then Ciao, Italia!!

Agreed on the potential escape to Canada. I guess I'll wait and see what the political climate is like after I've graduated from college.

Hell no, I believe in the freedom to secure myself. Survival mode bitches!

Simple question. If you had been living in a country that was engulfed in chaos would you give up your freedom and support a totalitarian government that offered security?
Not for myself, no. But I might consider it if it meant survival for my children and grandchildren.

Ciao means good-bye. :rolleyes: Agreed on the potential escape to Canada, though. I guess I'll wait and see what the political climate is like after I've graduated from college.
"Ciao" is used interchangeably. Like the Czech "ahoj," for both casual greeting and casual parting. At least that's what I heard Italians doing in Naples 2 years ago. BTW, "Ciao, Italia" is the title of a PBS cooking show.

EDIT: Wait, did you edit your post? Am I responding to nothing? Or did I dream it? Should I delete this? Damn it. Now I'm confused.

"Ciao" is used interchangeably. Like the Czech "ahoj," for both casual greeting and casual parting. At least that's what I heard Italians doing in Naples 2 years ago. BTW, "Ciao, Italia" is the title of a PBS cooking show.

EDIT: Wait, did you edit your post? Am I responding to nothing? Or did I dream it? Should I delete this? Damn it. Now I'm confused.

I edited it after checking Babelfish. Note to self: comment on incorrect use of words AFTER I check the validity of my complaint, not before. My apologies.

I edited it after checking Babelfish. Note to self: comment on incorrect use of words AFTER I check the validity of my complaint, not before. My apologies.
Yeah, it's the AFTER part that always gets us. (Sequence, sequence...) ;)

No, I'd never give up my freedom for anything, and security is an illusion anyway so it's kind of...a no. ;)

Never. I'd rather be dead.

Never. I'd rather be dead.
I think I would, too.

I can't answer definitively to either because as strong as I am in my personal set of beliefs, I acknowledge that everything is situational. Am I normally inclined to give up freedoms for security? Not at all.

Hell, I'm still fighting for freedoms. I know what they're worth and how hard it is to get them. I'd never give one up for any reason.

Simple question. If you had been living in a country that was engulfed in chaos would you give up your freedom and support a totalitarian government that offered security?

Fuck no.

Holy crap, so many people answered no??

So few people answered yes???

*eyes twitch from side to side*

Holy crap, so many people answered no??

So few people answered yes???

*eyes twitch from side to side*

Oh, it's surprising that people care about freedom and wouldn't want to give it up to some slimy, greasy fucks and a bunch of pigs?

Oh, it's surprising that people care about freedom and wouldn't want to give it up to some slimy, greasy fucks and a bunch of pigs?
Seeing how democratic governments all over the planet are acting, the surprise is probably justified...

Oh, it's surprising that people care about freedom and wouldn't want to give it up to some slimy, greasy fucks and a bunch of pigs?

No, It's surprising because in RL it's the other way round. It usually is more subtle though.

Hell, I'm still fighting for freedoms. I know what they're worth and how hard it is to get them. I'd never give one up for any reason.

Would you go to prison to protect your child from an unjust charge?

No, It's surprising because in RL it's the other way round. It usually is more subtle though.
Was. You're thinking of people like Napoleon and Louis XVIII, and Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar, and Saddam Hussein, and George W. Bush...oh crap, it still is true. :headbang: Will they never learn?

Short answer: No. Long answer: No, Never. Real long answer: No, nay, never, no more.

Seeing how democratic governments all over the planet are acting, the surprise is probably justified...

You have a point.

Simple question. If you had been living in a country that was engulfed in chaos would you give up your freedom and support a totalitarian government that offered security?

No. I'd be in armed rebellion against the tolitarian ****ers. I am a goddamned American after all.

Would you go to prison to protect your child from an unjust charge?

Oo, very interesting... Sure, gimme a hard case to think about. I guess it would depend on the charge, the age of my child, and the prescirbed punishments. All those little details could make the difference. But honestly, unless the conditions were REALLY extreme, I feel I might do more good fighting the injustice from the outside, pursuing the case in the courts. I know that sounds a bit naive. I know that justice isn't always served. But I think that's what I'd do... Of course, since I don't have a child and getting one could be... problematic... the question is academic.

Since I'm probably the reason that chaos has engulfed the region, why Earth would I want stability?!?

Well, it's not like we get a chance to decide...

Here's what the new Anti-Terror Laws mean for Australian media:
http://abc.net.au/mediawatch/img/2005/ep36/counsel.pdf

It's disgusting to be honest. If I'll suddenly stay away for a while it'll probably because our intelligence services have read this post.

Since I'm probably the reason that chaos has engulfed the region, why Earth would I want stability?!?

"We're getting sketchy reports from panicked survivors now. Apparently all was well until about four PM, when a mud-covered clown entered the mall and began hitting citizens in the genital areas with a tazer. This apparently snowballed into a total collapse of local, state and federal control of the tri-state area. More on this as it arrives."

"We're getting sketchy reports from panicked survivors now. Apparently all was well until about four PM, when a mud-covered clown entered the mall and began hitting citizens in the genital areas with a tazer. This apparently snowballed into a total collapse of local, state and federal control of the tri-state area. More on this as it arrives."

I'm a man with a dream... :D

Oo, very interesting... Sure, gimme a hard case to think about. I guess it would depend on the charge, the age of my child, and the prescirbed punishments. All those little details could make the difference. But honestly, unless the conditions were REALLY extreme, I feel I might do more good fighting the injustice from the outside, pursuing the case in the courts. I know that sounds a bit naive. I know that justice isn't always served. But I think that's what I'd do... Of course, since I don't have a child and getting one could be... problematic... the question is academic.

The more I think about it, the more I'd go with my original post: There are no circumstances under which I'd give up freedom for security. If I was being unjustly prosecuted (or persecuted) I wouldn't want a proxy to step in and take the blame, I'd fight it myself. And I wouldn't deny that to someone else.

Oh, it's surprising that people care about freedom and wouldn't want to give it up to some slimy, greasy fucks and a bunch of pigs?

It's surprising that people like electing slimy, greasy fucks and pigs like the past 50 US presidents.

As you can see, randomly inserting stuff like that does not strengthen any point.

And it's all a matter of perspective and opinion. It depends what you care about most, the safety and security of your family, or various freedoms.
I always think life as the most valuable commodity, where nothing other than more life can possibly be worth more.
So, in my opinion, the lives of you and your family, which are essential to life, are more important than freedoms, which are not necessary for life, like air and water is (and life).

So, in my opinion, the lives of you and your family, which are essential to life, are more important than freedoms, which are not necessary for life, like air and water is (and life).
But freedoms are something very certain - you know you have the freedom to say and do things.
Security is something much less clear...at what kind of risk, what kind of probability that you do get hurt or killed do you start abandoning your freedom of speech in return for safety?
Is there a realistic way of measuring, or making a clear picture of danger?

And here the entire quote by Ben Franklin (not the usual shorter version):
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

But freedoms are something very certain - you know you have the freedom to say and do things.
Security is something much less clear...at what kind of risk, what kind of probability that you do get hurt or killed do you start abandoning your freedom of speech in return for safety?
Is there a realistic way of measuring, or making a clear picture of danger?

Which is what's inherently problematic in making a decision either way. If there's a high risk, then no. If there's a low risk, then yes. And I guess it's pretty hard to start measuring the degree of risk... but I guess the answer to this question varies based on the data, so no accurate picture can be drawn.

And here the entire quote by Ben Franklin (not the usual shorter version):

Hey, the question said give up freedom for security. It did not ask me to examine the underlying causes of performing such an act. Just a simple question, probably only meant to analyze the two options, not to go into detail of how you get a dictator, but then your security will be even lower, etc... Hypothetical situation where there's a guarantee, so that's what I assumed.

not a chance

And here the entire quote by Ben Franklin (not the usual shorter version):
Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Why does everyone fuck this up so badly? (And there's only ONE correct version as it's a QUOTE).

Here's a scan of the original document from which Franklin is (almost always incorrectly) quoted: http://www.futureofthebook.com/picture$606

Read more about the inaccuracy of thousands of people misquoting this on the web here (http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605).

I voted yes.

Security will always more important to me then freedoms. Freedoms are grossly overrated. Freedoms are an illusion. That's my opinion anyway...

If I was living in a country that was engulfed in chaos, I would join the police force and have a hell of a good time shooting down the rebel scum.

I bet I'm the only one here that strongly prefers security over freedom. Hahaha...

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Seeing how democratic governments all over the planet are acting, the surprise is probably justified...

taking this line of thought a step further, in the real world everybody claims that they wouldn't obey arbitrary authority if they were commanded to do something they consider wrong. but put a guy in a lab coat (not even a real authority figure, just a scientist) and pretty much everyone administers the fatal shock when told.

Without freedoms, security would be hollow, as life would be unbearable.

We could all have very safe lives as slaves, I suppose. Perhaps life is more valuable than liberty, but I don't know about that. I don't think my life would really be my own if I had no rights. I would not want to raise children in a totalitarian state.

Also, at least in chaos I'd know I had no security, but all the freedom I could want. Whereas, with totalitarian dictatorship, who knows whether I'd actually get security or if I would be one of the ones disappeared.

Alas, poor Milgram.


I think that before I could adequately answer the forum question, I'd have to know what, precisely, I'm getting security from. Enemies? Occurrances? Disasters? Death? Cable television?

"Security" strikes me as a blanket term, too commonly applied in a narrow vein sensationalised by the mass media/collective concious. T

The more I think about it, the more I'd go with my original post: There are no circumstances under which I'd give up freedom for security. If I was being unjustly prosecuted (or persecuted) I wouldn't want a proxy to step in and take the blame, I'd fight it myself. And I wouldn't deny that to someone else.Would you give up the freedom to kill whomever you like in return for the security from illegalized murder and law enforcement on murderers?

Would you give up the freedom of spending your income how you want in favour of the security of a legal system? A stable monetary system? National defence?

The real question is: what freedom are trading for which security?

Why does everyone fuck this up so badly? (And there's only ONE correct version as it's a QUOTE).

Here's a scan of the original document from which Franklin is (almost always incorrectly) quoted: http://www.futureofthebook.com/picture$606

Read more about the inaccuracy of thousands of people misquoting this on the web here (http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605).
You have no idea how hard it is to find the correct quote.

Not only "No," but...
Hell, No!

As Benjamin Franklin said...
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Yes, I know it's already been said, but I knew the correct quote without having to look it up.

"Those who can give up their essential liberty to gain a little temporary security deserve neither"
-Ben Franklin

"Those who can give up their essential liberty to gain a little temporary security deserve neither"
-Ben Franklin

and those who give me a dollar in order to gain a temporary hamburger deserve neither, so i'll keep both.

and those who give me a dollar in order to gain a temporary hamburger deserve neither, so i'll keep both.
Pure Genious!

Jeff Cooper once wrote:
"Some years ago, I undertook to train the personal guard of a certain chief of state in pistolcraft. When the course was completed, I was able to address my client thus:

"Your Excellency, 24 of your 28 men are now distinctly more efficient with their sidearms than the generality of those who guard the President of the United States. They are very good, but I don't know who they are—I hope you do."

He knew what I meant. One of his predecessors in office had been murdered by one of his own guards. Of my students who previously employed bodyguards, most now do not, except as car watchers."

No. Now, if the US were to descend into anarchy I might make offer other people safety in return for their safety, but that is rather a different matter.

Simple question. If you had been living in a country that was engulfed in chaos would you give up your freedom and support a totalitarian government that offered security?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Simple question. If you had been living in a country that was engulfed in chaos would you give up your freedom and support a totalitarian government that offered security?

Not only NO, but HELL NO.

Recall this quote: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Benjamin Franklin quotes (American Statesman, Scientist, Philosopher, Printer, Writer and Inventor. 1706-1790)

taking this line of thought a step further, in the real world everybody claims that they wouldn't obey arbitrary authority if they were commanded to do something they consider wrong. but put a guy in a lab coat (not even a real authority figure, just a scientist) and pretty much everyone administers the fatal shock when told.
You heard of the experiment I take it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Everyone read this!
People aren't nice, often people are mindless sheep following command from above....

You heard of the experiment I take it?

indeed i have. and i was so disturbed that i actually went out to the library to look into what sort of commonality was shared by those who didn't go on obeying all the way. seems that milgram couldn't find anything but a weak correlation to scores on the f-scale. of course, the f-scale isn't a particularly well designed measure, so the weakness may be the result of it poorly reflecting some underlying correlation to 'anti-authoritarian personalities'. or it may be nothing. hard to say.