NationStates Jolt Archive

My question today is quite simple, would you mind living in a society where all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc. but at the cost of any personal liberty be it social, economic, or political including freedom of expression, self-defense, privacy, fair trial, etc.? Would you trade your liberties for total security?

My question today is quite simple, would you mind living in a society where all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc. but at the cost of any personal liberty be it social, economic, or political including freedom of expression, self-defense, privacy, fair trial, etc.? Would you trade your liberties for total security?

Your thread title is misleading as that would not be a Utopian society.

My question today is quite simple, would you mind living in a society where all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc. but at the cost of any personal liberty be it social, economic, or political including freedom of expression, self-defense, privacy, fair trial, etc.? Would you trade your liberties for total security?

That is not utopia, that is dystopia.

But no, I wouldn't. Freedom > Safety.

Your thread title is misleading as that would not be a Utopian society.
I'm being realistic. There is no such thing as a Utopia as that is the perfect society and there is no such thing as perfect. Everything has a cost, I'm simply facotring in that cost, a realistic one. You can't keep everyone totally safe without stripping them of their freedoms.

My question today is quite simple, would you mind living in a society where all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc. but at the cost of any personal liberty be it social, economic, or political including freedom of expression, self-defense, privacy, fair trial, etc.? Would you trade your liberties for total security?

No. I prefer compromis. There are some safeties that I believe society has to guarantee, as well as some rights that are untouchable.

If people were free they could keep themselves secure.

I'm being realistic. There is no such thing as a Utopia as that is the perfect society and there is no such thing as perfect. Everything has a cost, I'm simply facotring in that cost, a realistic one. You can't keep everyone totally safe without stripping them of their freedoms.

If you want to be realistic then call it what it is, don't mis name it "Utopia", which it is not.

Fact is that the concept of Utopia included the ideas of personal liberties, freedoms, expression, etc. long before the ideas of free health care came along.

You are not going to convince me that St. Thomas More was writing about the NHS.

Therefore, use the correct term rather than butchering one. What you describe is pretty much the exact polar opposite of Utopia.

I don't like either extreme nor do I understand how you have connected the two:confused:

how about we do away with governments altogether for awhile maybe dig up Jefferson and give him a swift kick in the nads for making that quote on security whilst setting up a government

If people were free they could keep themselves secure.
That's what I believe too. The thing is that I recently came by someone IRL who would prefer total safety and didn't mind the fact that he'd have to surrender his liberties to get it.

[Edit]
I've also met several on the interwebz who seem to think this is a fair trade off so I'm posting the question here to see what people would be willing to give up for security that some think only government can provide.

If you want to be realistic then call it what it is, don't mis name it "Utopia", which it is not.

Fact is that the concept of Utopia included the ideas of personal liberties, freedoms, expression, etc. long before the ideas of free health care came along.

You are not going to convince me that St. Thomas More was writing about the NHS.

Therefore, use the correct term rather than butchering one. What you describe is pretty much the exact polar opposite of Utopia.


You're the type of person that makes it so annoying to read these things. Ok he misquoted. Get over yourself, and discuss the subject.
We are all just so impressed that you know who St. Thomas More is I started my own wikipedia page just after you, and your ungodly knowledge. WWWOOOO

I trade religion.

How the hell is this supposed to be utopia?

Hell no! I would rather have no safety net and be free than have a safety net and not be free.

Liberty and personal freedom will always trump safety, ALWAYS!

I trade religion.

Stick "organized" in front of that "religion" and I'm in.

My question today is quite simple, would you mind living in a society where all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc. but at the cost of any personal liberty be it social, economic, or political including freedom of expression, self-defense, privacy, fair trial, etc.? Would you trade your liberties for total security?

Free health care, the right to income support, freedom of opinion, expression, and privacy, the right to fair trial - all at a cost of ~50% of all you've earned.

Apart from economic freedom, I think I'm pretty well of as it is :). Hooray for Scandinavian welfare :p.

But, if I had to give up either freedom or security, I'd stick with freedom any day (i.e., giving up security.)

Would you trade your liberties for total security?I wouldn't, but if they're going to be taken anyway, I'd much rather have social security as compensation than just a paranoid government.
It seems an odd trade though, since one has nothing to do with the other.

Liberty and personal freedom will always trump safety, ALWAYS!In theory, perhaps. In practice survival takes precedence.
Let's just hope never to get in a situation were that statement is put to the test.

My question today is quite simple, would you mind living in a society where all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc. but at the cost of any personal liberty be it social, economic, or political including freedom of expression, self-defense, privacy, fair trial, etc.? Would you trade your liberties for total security?

No, I would not. However, this is not the dilemma with which we are faced, and if you are attempting to paint it as such, you are being dishonest.

In reality, freedom of expression is almost required for any kind of social justice. If the people are not free to complain about the situation in which they live, it will not improve. Without privacy and a fair trial, abuses of the justice system will be so common place that any benefits one might gain from such a welfare state would be irrelevant.

Your thread title is misleading as that would not be a Utopian society.Actually, having read Thomas More's Utopia, it's not that far fetched. The original Utopia was rather limited on personal freedoms (having to wear the same clothing having to believe in some way in a god, etc). It wouldn't be my choice of society.
(But admittedly the meaning of the concept 'Utopia' has evolved a bit from it's origins.)

Depends exactly on what liberties I would be losing, but probably a no....

I don't think a perfect society is possible given that no one is perfect.

In theory, perhaps. In practice survival takes precedence.
Let's just hope never to get in a situation were that statement is put to the test.

I would rather die as a free and liberated man than to live as a 'safe' unfree and unliberated man.

In my opinion, a utopia would have to be perfectly tailored to meet the needs of each of it's inhabitants. This is theoretically possible, but logistically impossible. With six people, it could potentially be done. With six billion, there are simply too many variables. And then there's the simple fact that some people are just incompatible with any kind of society.

No. I don't believe in benevolent dictatorships.

It would really depend on which freedoms I would have to give up. I wouldn't mind if I only had to give up the ones I wasn't planning on using anyway.

No, it would be an awful choice. Poverty would be superior to this place.

No. That society is stagnant and will never change or improve. Freedom allows the possibility for continual improvement, even if it comes at the cost of security.

No.

I would rather die as a free and liberated man than to live as a 'safe' unfree and unliberated man.That's easy to say now, when you don't face that choice.
If it's a choice between having nothing but your freedom, or having everything but your freedom, I can't believe anyone would chose freedom without hesitation. It's only easy to say from a perspective that that choice isn't at hand and most likely won't be.
(The more realistic choice we face is that we have our freedom and things are as they are now, or we give up our freedom and things are still pretty much as they are now; in which case we gave up something for nothing.)

Perhaps an more interesting question than what someone would choose, is to ask why freedom is valuable in the first place. (Which is not to suggest I don't believe it is; but questioning one's beliefs is an interesting excersize)

No. That society is stagnant and will never change or improve.If it's (otherwise) perfect, how could it improve in the first place?
Why is change a priori a good thing?

No, it would be an awful choice. Poverty would be superior to this place.You have a lot of experience in poverty to be able to so boldy claim this?

I don't think a perfect society is possible given that no one is perfect.

Perfection is itself a verbal construct. It does not actually exist in any way. Therefore, yes, all perfection is impossible in the physical universe.

no, I'd rather have social security and freedom.

That is not utopia, that is dystopia.

But no, I wouldn't. Freedom > Safety.

Safety is overrated.

I will agree with Proudhon on this one - "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of Order."

In theory, perhaps. In practice survival takes precedence.
Let's just hope never to get in a situation were that statement is put to the test.

Like in Russia. Economic stability vs freedom

But then again, their previous situation was much worse.

Like in Russia. Economic stability vs freedom

But then again, their previous situation was much worse.

I'm not sure I get your point; as I see it, neither economic stability nor political freedom are commonplace in Russia today. Of course, economic freedom has improved hugely during the last ~20 years, though sadly this has not led to much stabilization. The change was likely too abrubt.

I blame the governments' management.

My question today is quite simple, would you mind living in a society where all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc. but at the cost of any personal liberty be it social, economic, or political including freedom of expression, self-defense, privacy, fair trial, etc.? Would you trade your liberties for total security?

Nope!

My question today is quite simple, would you mind living in a society where all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc. but at the cost of any personal liberty be it social, economic, or political including freedom of expression, self-defense, privacy, fair trial, etc.? Would you trade your liberties for total security?

This is a bit of a trick question...I'd probably answer yes.

Let me explain - Of the list of liberties you gave...

Social, economic, or political freedoms: All would stand on roughly equal base so these would pretty much be considered detrimental to the harmony of society. In this scenario these freedoms would translate to self centered 'I want more' mentality because there would exist no need to fight for equality, poor or less fortunate, let alone combat racism....Infact if we turn the question around the point comes clearer: What better policies could you adhere to in order to improve a society which succeeded in creating and maintaining a "sustainable universal wellbeing"?

freedom of expression: What do you mean by freedom of expression? There's no such thing existing today so why should there be in an utopia where your needs are catered for for free? Depending on what you mean here - I assume agitative behaviour - I could go along with this: There's no point in being an anarchist when the society's goal is universal well being.

self-defense: If the society can control and protect its people well enough this would be a non-issue. Secondly, I dislike the concept of 'right of self defence' because it usually is interpreted to mean 'right of harming the opponent by any means available to any level desirable'.

fair trial: Fair trials wouldn't have a need of existing as all trials would be predetermined for all facts would be known because of...

privacy: ...non existent privacy. Government/society/megacomputer would know all so there's no need for a fair trial.

Of the things you listed, privacy would be the only one I'd clearly be fighting for on the barricades.

Firstly, what the OP portrays is not a utopia. A utopia, if it is have any semantic worth, is a perfect society; hence, the compromise he suggests precludes the society being a utopia.

Secondly, in Britain the terribly clever welfare state already exists, much to my chagrin. It is a vast, bloated entity suffused by beaurocracy, protocol and waste, and serves only to perpetuate and encourage a lack of personal responsibility in certain elements of society.

Please do not think me incompasionate (actually, I couldn't care less what the majority of you think, but meh), however, the OP makes his suggestion in the naive conviction that the existence of a welfare state wherein one has no compulsion to work would not encourage idleness. Though measures should be taken to act as an anodyne for the genuinely deserving poor, I see no reason why public money should be expended so as to allow those more than able to work not to do so.

Hell no! I would rather have no safety net and be free than have a safety net and not be free.

Liberty and personal freedom will always trump safety, ALWAYS!

I agree entirely.

Liberty always beats oppression!

Firstly, what the OP portrays is not a utopia. A utopia, if it is have any semantic worth, is a perfect society; hence, the compromise he suggests precludes the society being a utopia.

Secondly, in Britain the terribly clever welfare state already exists, much to my chagrin. It is a vast, bloated entity suffused by beaurocracy, protocol and waste, and serves only to perpetuate and encourage a lack of personal responsibility in certain elements of society.

Please do not think me incompasionate (actually, I couldn't care less what the majority of you think, but meh), however, the OP makes his suggestion in the naive conviction that the existence of a welfare state wherein one has no compulsion to work would not encourage idleness. Though measures should be taken to act as an anodyne for the genuinely deserving poor, I see no reason why public money should be expended so as to allow those more than able to work not to do so.
The purpose of this thread was to expose what many here seem to view as an ideal society for what it truly is. I too am opposed to welfare states, especially those that encourage sloth, but I wanted to see how many proponents would be willing to pay the piper once the silver lining were torn away and the dark cloud of their flawed perception of perfection revealed.

I always advocate what so few are willing to accept in the form of a totally liberated society so as to attain a "compromise" with more freedom than security and allow myself more room at the table during negotiations.

This is a false dilema and a totally usless question, you wouldn't have to give up ALL freedoms personal or political to have a significant measure of social security, many European societies can be used as an example .. go see sicko Micheal Mooores movie..its was enlightening.. in fact i would say from what i know the French have both more economic security and more personal freedom than the average American does.. it is freer and fairer hands down.
Les Américains sont stupides:headbang:

My question today is quite simple, would you mind living in a society where all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc. but at the cost of any personal liberty be it social, economic, or political including freedom of expression, self-defense, privacy, fair trial, etc.? Would you trade your liberties for total security?

Its not necessarry , Socialism is a better system for all but the bloodsuckers at the top, and i'm reporting you to inland revenue i bet you haven't paid your taxes.

I will agree with Proudhon on this one - "Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of Order."

and property is theft!

Pagu_Wotonia, it is not a false dilema, I am not rich, you don't know me, I pay my taxes, I suspect you're a puppet as I find it hard to believe anyone could be so stupid.