NationStates Jolt Archive

For purposes of this poll, let's say that you have to choose between two different types of government protections, and that your nation of residence if facing a very eminent threat.

Would you choose security, as in a complete and total government invasion of your privacy rights, denial of your basic criminal rights if you are tried including the right to a fair and speedy trial, access to a lawyer, and other basic freedoms, in order for your state officials to best protect you and the nation from harm's way? Or civil liberties, as in retaining your privacy rights and other basic freedoms, including the ones mentioned above, at the expense of the government not being able to protect you nearly as effectively as it could if you were to give up such rights? Which would you value more?

Note: Obviously there are shades of grey in this issue, but for the purposes of this poll, in order to best pinpoint where people's priortieis lie, let's keep it black and white.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Benjamin Franklin, if I remember correctly. Smart guy, he was.

Benjamin Franklin, if I remember correctly. Smart guy, he was.
Quite.

I refuse to even vote on this. Everyone is going to say Civil Liberties, because it is the "correct" answer to say. A couple fundies and neocons might say Security. At any rate, I doubt this will foster any meaningful discussion and is just a roundabout way for you to express your political beliefs.

I wonder how many people will continue to hold their civil liberties when their lives are in immediate danger. I like to think I would, but I don't really know.

Here's the quote you were looking for

"Any society that would give up a little freedom for a little security will deserve neither, and loose both."

I refuse to even vote on this. Everyone is going to say Civil Liberties, because it is the "correct" answer to say. A couple fundies and neocons might say Security. At any rate, I doubt this will foster any meaningful discussion and is just a roundabout way for you to express your political beliefs.

I wonder how many people will continue to hold their civil liberties when their lives are in immediate danger. I like to think I would, but I don't really know.
I'd say that both options are equally weighted. Yes, I have chosen a side, but it isn't a 1-2-3 decision, in my mind. I mean, it's a good question: protections of your rights, or protections of your ass? It's hardly a way for me to express my political beliefs; rather, it's just me trying to gage where most people's (on this board) priorities lie.

I think life means little if you're not allowed to enjoy it.

I refuse to even vote on this. Everyone is going to say Civil Liberties, because it is the "correct" answer to say. A couple fundies and neocons might say Security. At any rate, I doubt this will foster any meaningful discussion and is just a roundabout way for you to express your political beliefs.

I wonder how many people will continue to hold their civil liberties when their lives are in immediate danger. I like to think I would, but I don't really know.


I would. And I have absolutely no respect for anyone who, in effect, would be willing to live in a dictatorship for "security". Especially, since all they'd really be doing is trading the possiblilty of a terrorist attack for the possibility that their own government will decide to kill them.

I refuse to even vote on this. Everyone is going to say Civil Liberties, because it is the "correct" answer to say. A couple fundies and neocons might say Security. At any rate, I doubt this will foster any meaningful discussion and is just a roundabout way for you to express your political beliefs.

I wonder how many people will continue to hold their civil liberties when their lives are in immediate danger. I like to think I would, but I don't really know.

As the OP stated, there are shades of gray here. Therein lies the debate. I think the OP, if debate is the intent, needs to tie in the forced dichotomy of the poll to the continuum of security and civil liberty. Unless another poster decides to do that themselves.

If forced to choose one of the other: civil liberties, of course. In the face of an imminent and direct threat to my life, the lives of those I care about, or everything I hold dear, which is beyond my control? I'm sure I'd be willing to give up some liberty temporarily (hopefully) to prevent it. This is why Ben Franklin put the qualifier "essential" in his statement. The line will differ for everyone - I'm not even sure where that line is for me personally. Still, I'd rather face some risk and be free as opposed to being secure but un-free.

For purposes of this poll, let's say that you have to choose between two different types of government protections, and that your nation of residence if facing a very eminent threat.

Would you choose security, as in a complete and total government invasion of your privacy rights, denial of your basic criminal rights if you are tried including the right to a fair and speedy trial, access to a lawyer, and other basic freedoms, in order for your state officials to best protect you and the nation from harm's way? Or civil liberties, as in retaining your privacy rights and other basic freedoms, including the ones mentioned above, at the expense of the government not being able to protect you nearly as effectively as it could if you were to give up such rights? Which would you value more?

Note: Obviously there are shades of grey in this issue, but for the purposes of this poll, in order to best pinpoint where people's priortieis lie, let's keep it black and white.
It's not an "either/or" proposition. I'm very much a civil libertarian, but also a devout advocate of a strong military and civil defense.

However, if I had to choose, it would be for less security in favor of full civil liberties. I'd much rather die standing than on my knees.

As the OP stated, there are shades of gray here. Therein lies the debate. I think the OP, if debate is the intent, needs to tie in the forced dichotomy of the poll to the continuum of security and civil liberty. Unless another poster decides to do that themselves.

If forced to choose one of the other: civil liberties, of course. In the face of an imminent and direct threat to my life, the lives of those I care about, or everything I hold dear, which is beyond my control? I'm sure I'd be willing to give up some liberty temporarily (hopefully) to prevent it. This is why Ben Franklin put the qualifier "essential" in his statement. The line will differ for everyone - I'm not even sure where that line is for me personally. Still, I'd rather face some risk and be free as opposed to being secure but un-free.
My intent in posting two, and therefore, very limiting options was to see which of the two people valued more overall. Obviously, we'd all like to see a blend of the two in order to keep us safe both from physical harm and government corruption. Still, in the end, people must favor one side over the other, regardless of how balanced they want the two to be, so I wrote the poll in the way I did to see what people's fundamental inclination was towards. But, you are right: the question still remains as to how far should one or the other be taken?

EDIT: Although now I realize that NationStates does have a liberal majority, so this may not be the best place to gage what the average person truly values...

On the one hand I do like to be safe, on the other I don't like people poking about my stuff and intruding whenever they feel like it. Now, I don't have anything to hide, at least nothing that would intrest the government, but, complete loss of basic freedoms? I guess I just need to think about this some more before I could really decide.

On the one hand I do like to be safe, on the other I don't like people poking about my stuff and intruding whenever they feel like it. Now, I don't have anything to hide, at least nothing that would intrest the government, but, complete loss of basic freedoms? I guess I just need to think about this some more before I could really decide.
Well, then there's the question about how far are things going now? In the United States, we have the Patriot Act, which allows the government to snoop in on your library/Internet history/activity, delays and even stops notification that your property was searched, etc. There's of course the infamous issue of Guantanamo Bay, and now, Bush's secret domestic spying programs, all being conducted without court orders. Bush has been criticized a lot for all of these moves, but there are still a good amount of people who believe that they are necessary to preserve the safety of the American people.

So all of this leaves open the question: how far is too far? If you voted in the poll, you know where you lean. Now the question becomes, how does the government balance both in such a way that protects the right that you find most fundamental. Personally, I think that some provisions of the Patriot Act are necessary, not to mention that the court system is still included in it, but that the holding of prisoners without trial at Guantanamo Bay as well as Bush's warrantless spying programs go too far. But, that's because I favor civil liberties at the root of balancing the two subjects of the poll. I guess it all comes down: how far can the government go before they're favoring too much the right you value less over the right that you value more?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

Not to mention that with the right civil liberties, you can look after your own security.

:)

"Give me liberty, or give me death." - Patrick Henry

Okay, which two wackos voted for the latter?

Okay, which two wackos voted for the latter?
Me, but I didn't read the OP first. :p

I thought it was just a standard 'should we lose some liberty for security' question, rather than a 'one or the other as an absolute.'

Mind you, I probably still wouldn't have voted for it if I'd given it any thought. I just click because I like polls. :)

Me, but I didn't read the OP first. :p

I thought it was just a standard 'should we lose some liberty for security' question, rather than a 'one or the other as an absolute.'

Mind you, I probably still wouldn't have voted for it if I'd given it any thought. I just click because I like polls. :)

Whatever, man. Honestly, I wouldn't mind being less secure if we had all-out civil liberties (can you say nudity in the streets?).

Whatever, man. Honestly, I wouldn't mind being less secure if we had all-out civil liberties (can you say nudity in the streets?).
Maybe, but you know most of the people who'd be wandering around naked would be the ones that make you wish you were blind.

Not to mention that with the right civil liberties, you can look after your own security.

:)

If we could all carry guns a la the "old West", I'd imagine there would be fewer murders on the streets...

...Afterall, it would make the potential murderers think more about their actions. Would they really want the victim's friends to unload on them? :p

Whatever, man. Honestly, I wouldn't mind being less secure if we had all-out civil liberties (can you say nudity in the streets?).
*Shudders*

The thought of grannies and beached whales wondering about doing their shopping in the buff is enough to make me glad I voted for the security option.

Maybe, but you know most of the people who'd be wandering around naked would be the ones that make you wish you were blind.

Hey, they look just as bad with clothes on...

To me, it's a choice between the insecurity of being vulnerable to terrorists and the insecurity of being vulnerable to statism and being vulnerable to terrorists.

How are you secure if your own government can control you and your freedoms completely?

Benjamin Franklin, if I remember correctly. Smart guy, he was.
So smart he went outside in a lightning storm with a kite..:rolleyes:

The vote is largely for liberties and yet most of these people that probably voted for it are democrats who have no concept of liberty at all.

I'll put it this way; would you be willing to risk getting raped and cut in the throat for liberty?

So smart he went outside in a lightning storm with a kite..:rolleyes:

The vote is largely for liberties and yet most of these people that probably voted for it are democrats who have no concept of liberty at all.

I'll put it this way; would you be willing to risk getting raped and cut in the throat for liberty?

1: That's actually quite likely a myth. Ever watched Mythbusters? Doing that with a kite transfers enough energy to kill you in, well... A flash.

2: LMAO! Oh my fucking god... Not even close, pal. Jesus Fucking Christ.

3: With true liberty, the risk of that would be quite low. Nobody would want to pull a knife on me, seeing as I'd have a pistol packed safely away in my jacket.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
I am certain that all of the people saying this have always had both security and civil liberties.

And what are these absolutes we're being asked to vote on? I regard the right to security, the right not to be blown up or otherwise hurt or killed as civil liberties.

EDIT: Although now I realize that NationStates does have a liberal majority, so this may not be the best place to gage what the average person truly values...

However, I'm not a liberal, and I vote liberty. :p

However, I'm not a liberal, and I vote liberty. :p

*hands you a box of special cookies*

*also hands you a double barreled Magnum .357 and two boxes of ammunition*

The security given up for liberty is the real cost of freedom.

I'd wouldn't care if I spent every moment of my life under surveillance so long as I know my loved ones are safe

Lets not forget that the poll is extreme either way and is asking for you to choose between complete anarchy or a surprisingly light totalitarianism

Benjamin Franklin, if I remember correctly. Smart guy, he was.
wonder what he would say about today's situation where one's enemies don't wear the military uniform but will share a meal with you the day before they kill you.

Here's the quote you were looking for
Can Ben Franklin provide any real world examples, or is this just an ideological doctrine?

However, if I had to choose, it would be for less security in favor of full civil liberties. I'd much rather die standing than on my knees.
That "rather die on my feet than live on my knees" quote is not about living under the protection of a maximum security government, it's about rebelling against one.

for me, it would depend on the situation.

1) the Government says that there are people out there that will kill us. then I say Liberty over security

2) a city is nuked and investigation points to extremists living in my nation. then security over liberty.

wonder what he would say about today's situation where one's enemies don't wear the military uniform but will share a meal with you the day before they kill you.
They had them back in the day too: Pirates! Yaarr!

They had them back in the day too: Pirates! Yaarr!
ah, but Pirates could be hired. Privateers! Yaarr!
*slides down a bottle of RUM!*

I think the trick is to provide the amount of security that allows for the greatest amount of civil liberty. You can't very well be free if someone can just walk up and shoot you, because that means that others can violate your rights. But if the government starts taking away from you and not giving you more liberty in turn, then it is just acting like a criminal in turn. Where this level of security at the cost of liberty begins, though, is a question unto itself.