NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, well, I'm new here, so I decided to start with a topic that, I suppose, is somewhat less heated than most debates, and is a lot easier to participate in, the classic Security Or Liberty? debate.

Basic concept is that it's very hard to have Security while having Liberty, and visa versa, and therefore if we want either, we will have to sacrifice the other. I, personally, go with security, as I don't understand what good use Liberty does you if you're dead, despite what Ben Franklin says about the whole "deserving of neither" thing. Of course, I wouldn't go for like, completely eradicating liberties for the sake of complete, 100%, absurd security. I mean, the only way we'd achieve that is if we were god damned robots, which I don't plan to be. I mean, security cameras on every street corner will probably prevent more crime than allowing police to perform random full body searches on whomever they want, whenever they want.

So yeah, what's your take on the whole thing?

Also, don't be afraid to point out if I do something noobish in the debate, I'm open to criticism, since I'm not that experienced yet.

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
-Ben Franklin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)

I guess I agree with that...I'd like Security, but not if I have to sacrifice essential liberties

As I said, some liberties I simply cannot throw away. For example, how dangerous is freedom of speech, or freedom of the press? And no, perceived threats such as the ones Hitler and Stalin made up do not count as "threats".

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
-Ben Franklin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)

I guess I agree with that...I'd like Security, but not if I have to sacrifice essential liberties

"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
-Ben Franklin (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)

I guess I agree with that...I'd like Security, but not if I have to sacrifice essential liberties

That pretty much says it all. The difficult part lies in drawing the line around the "essential" liberties that we can't restrict. I prefer a very large circle, with perhaps a looser fence around it, while it seems that my government prefers a very tight circle with a solid steel wall.

Frankly, though wise, was a bit too simplistic. The fact is we trade liberty for security all the time. That's the fundamental principle behind Hobbes' The Leviathan. We give up liberty all the time. I give up the liberty to get drunk and drive a car. I give up the liberty to wander down mainstreet naked carrying an M16. I give up the liberty to wander into your house and take your stuff. I give up the liberty to do a whole lot of things and, in exchange, society is made safer by me not driving drunk/wielding an assault rifle/robbing your house.

The trick is to decide those liberties we are not willing to give up, for any gain of security, and then figure out how to make society as safe as possible without compromising them.

Without security, liberty is pointless. I think I've said this somewhere else, but I believe government should focus on securing "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in that order. However, once the government has maintained a level of security necessary to keep me alive, they should stay at that level and then focus on liberties.

They said it perfectly in Star Wars III:

"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

It's true...we're more willing to give away our freedoms and liberties for a sliver of security until, eventually, one day, we'll have none left...

well, since our rights are inalienable...
(sometimes they are called "human" or "civil" rights, listed in US bill of rights)
it's just a matter of holding those who attempted to restrict them accountable.


Peru is about to hold their former dictator Alberto Fujimori to account with Chile extraditing him home.
We can start to hold those restricting our rights by going after Fujimori's accomplices in our respective home countries. Be they government or corporate personal.




Chile court extradites Fujimori
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7006689.stm
Last Updated: Saturday, 22 September 2007, 01:00 GMT 02:00 UK

Chile's Supreme Court has approved the extradition of Peru's former President Alberto Fujimori to face human rights abuses and corruption charges.

FUJIMORI CHARGES
2 human rights charges:
Sanctioned death squad killings - 1991 Barrios Altos 15 killed
- 1992 La Cantuta 10 killed
5 corruption charges: including
- embezzling $15m
- payoffs to congress members
- illegal wiretapping


In These Times magazine article, September 2002 "Fujimori's Legacy"
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Fujimori's_Legacy.html

some book excerpts with some stuff on Fujimori, cia, cocaine, etc...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Drug_War/Cocaine_Politics.html

Security depends on liberty, not vice versa. Places that seem anarchic from afar, such as failed states, are actually small scale tyrannies operating block to block, house to house, region to region, as in Somalia or Darfur. The reason they are violent isn't that there aren't or weren't enough laws to protect the people, but that they (as individuals) didn't recognize the rights of their neighbors to live or hold property.

No country or people or religion is exempt, respect for the rights of others is the crucial element to a free and prosperous society. Restrictive laws only accelerate the breakdown of trust and respect for rights.

Liberty obviously. I will die a free man gladly.

I would rather take more security over liberty, but it depends on what type of liberties are being taken away.

You give up a few now, and you'll be sure to give up more along the way.

I would rather take more security over liberty, but it depends on what type of liberties are being taken away.

You need to optimize the mix of liberty and security. The "patriot" act, for example, gives up liberty for only a little bit of security, while removing the entire police department would get rid of a great deal of security to give only a little liberty. The way things are in the US, we're fairly close to the optimal mix of liberty and security -- let's keep it that way.

You need to optimize the mix of liberty and security. The "patriot" act, for example, gives up liberty for only a little bit of security, while removing the entire police department would get rid of a great deal of security to give only a little liberty. The way things are in the US, we're fairly close to the optimal mix of liberty and security -- let's keep it that way.


sorry, I don't mean to pick on you South Lorenya,
I just wanted to get the last sentence in your paragraph.
W is not about to make me forget the way I saw the world before he became president. It was terrible then too. As was US foreign policy.
It's just that now death has accelerated and is happening to US youth and family people, and other assorted people who happen to be employed as soldiers.




How about the US supreme court's ruling that money=speech for campaign contributions? This would mean some have much, much more free speech than others. (a dissenting justice wrote that money=property and the transfer of property could be regulated. i happen to agree with the dissenting judge and believe this will be overturned someday, as long as there exists a united states)


or the whole national-security apparatus put in place by then president Harry Truman? and also the fbi which operates as a national political police with an occasional prosecution of street and even white collar crimes.
it's twin un-constitutional agency, the cia which impedes liberties in other countries by overthrowing other people's democracies and subverts elections, arms death squads, etc...


or the consolidation of media ownership, which to save money consolidates newsrooms and we get less viewpoints because of it, or fear of offending their main source of income - advertisers. offend viewers equals offending advertisers because the eyes are what the advertisers are after.
this gives more liberties to....
"freedom of the press belongs to those that own one"
Or the selective licensing of the authority to broadcast over naturally our (everybody's) airwaves, for that matter?


or "rights" for a chair.
i mean a corporation.
currently this non-human legal creation has "rights".
since 1886 supreme court Santa Clara Co vs Southern Pacific Railroad.
thus anybody smart enough to apply for a corporate charter can do a lot of things with "limited liability" that a natural human person cannot.
we could change this BACK to the way it was for the first half of the US...make stock holders/owners liable once again.

The choice between Liberty vs Security

If a society have too little liberty, nobody can protect you from the government. You will end up with something like North Korea, or to a greater extreme, the chin dynasty (if your government can kill you at any time, that's not exactly the most secure place to be in).

If a society have too little security, then would probably mean the government is weak and you would end up having to fight for yourself. Leading for people to eventually form small groups for protection, or feudalism (so you don't really have liberty here either).

So the truth is, you can't really give up one and expect to get the other. You take out one you lose the other too. Only a secure society can sustain liberty, and only a society with liberty can keep the government from overly abusing their power.

But if I much choose, consider both choices have their unique sets of harm in terms of personal safety anyway, I much rather be free and fight for myself than becoming a slave.

well, since our rights are inalienable...
(sometimes they are called "human" or "civil" rights, listed in US bill of rights)
it's just a matter of holding those who attempted to restrict them accountable.


Peru is about to hold their former dictator Alberto Fujimori to account with Chile extraditing him home.
We can start to hold those restricting our rights by going after Fujimori's accomplices in our respective home countries. Be they government or corporate personal.




Chile court extradites Fujimori
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7006689.stm
Last Updated: Saturday, 22 September 2007, 01:00 GMT 02:00 UK

Chile's Supreme Court has approved the extradition of Peru's former President Alberto Fujimori to face human rights abuses and corruption charges.

FUJIMORI CHARGES
2 human rights charges:
Sanctioned death squad killings - 1991 Barrios Altos 15 killed
- 1992 La Cantuta 10 killed
5 corruption charges: including
- embezzling $15m
- payoffs to congress members
- illegal wiretapping


In These Times magazine article, September 2002 "Fujimori's Legacy"
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Fujimori's_Legacy.html

some book excerpts with some stuff on Fujimori, cia, cocaine, etc...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Drug_War/Cocaine_Politics.html

And I point out Juan Peron. Not all dictators are evil bastards who use their power of their own gain. Some genuinely care about their people.

Liberty. Giving up liberty for security means giving up your security from government tyranny (liberty) in exchange for throwing a few more criminals (or political enemies) in jail. Losing some liberties (like the right to live, or the right to self defense) results in being less secure.

The only time liberties should be sacrificed in when they contradict other liberties, such as having both the right to live and the right to murder. Or the right to own property and the right to steal or vandalize things.

The problem with this exchange is that you do not actually give up liberty for security - you give up liberty for the illusion of security.

Security should only limit liberty to the sense that your liberty stops at my shoulder. Other than that, Liberty wins out over all. True security is really just the liberty to safeguard other liberties.

Ok, well, I'm new here, so I decided to start with a topic that, I suppose, is somewhat less heated than most debates, and is a lot easier to participate in, the classic Security Or Liberty? debate.

Basic concept is that it's very hard to have Security while having Liberty, and visa versa, and therefore if we want either, we will have to sacrifice the other. I, personally, go with security, as I don't understand what good use Liberty does you if you're dead, despite what Ben Franklin says about the whole "deserving of neither" thing. Of course, I wouldn't go for like, completely eradicating liberties for the sake of complete, 100%, absurd security. I mean, the only way we'd achieve that is if we were god damned robots, which I don't plan to be. I mean, security cameras on every street corner will probably prevent more crime than allowing police to perform random full body searches on whomever they want, whenever they want.

So yeah, what's your take on the whole thing?

Also, don't be afraid to point out if I do something noobish in the debate, I'm open to criticism, since I'm not that experienced yet.

They are not mutually exclusive despite what statists really want you to think.

And I point out Juan Peron. Not all dictators are evil bastards who use their power of their own gain. Some genuinely care about their people.

i tend to disagree, but...hey. that's ok.
Just because Madonna made a movie about his wife doesn't make him ok.

I actually know little about him.
Just that he was a dictator and his wife was well liked by the people.



One could take a very non-dictator like in Venezuela and do some good for the population.

FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!! (bomb explodes, kills main character; heroic music)

Originally posted by Benjamin Franklin
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Yes.

The problem with this exchange is that you do not actually give up liberty for security - you give up liberty for the illusion of security.

How very true. And everytime that a society gives away its liberties, the government will not give them back. Of course, we are told that it is being done for our own good, and somewhere down the road, someone will have to fight back to get those liberties back.

Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? ...
... What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

March 23, 1775
St. John's Church
Richmond, Va

Although in reference to something different, the words still ring true, for the most part, for this very subject.

Liberty > Security ...

And if any of you are in Richmond, go check out St. John's Church. The man who reenacts that speech does a great job. And while you are in Richmond, make the 70 mile drive on I-64 to see Monticello. I'm lucky enough to live in the heart of the Confederacy and am close to all of these great American sites. So much history, and as a history buff ... I love it!

I likes my liberty, at least what remains of it.

If I lived in a country similar to Singapore however, I'd have no problem living there either, seeing as how the government really does look out for everyone's best interests.

It's human nature to want liberty. Ever since we were babies banging on the bars of our cribs, trying to escape and explore the kitchen cabinets, we've wanted to have freedom to do exactly what we wanted to do.

However, just as we put bars on cribs to keep young children from hurting themselves, we need laws to keep people safe. If everyone did exactly what they wanted to do, then the world would be in complete chaos. Angora-o isn't supporting a dictatorship or a totalitarian government, but is instead supporting basic laws that help to keep the over all peace. It is impossible to let everyone have free will and eliminate crime at the same time.

In the opinion of Angora-o, it is important to balance liberty and security. In a way, security allows liberty to exist. Though it may restrict some liberties to provide basic security, such as the freedom of driving while under the influence of alcohol at ninety miles an hour, it also is able to allow (when laws are created correctly) people to have the freedom to live a life without a great fear of being hit by cars while driving down the road, among other things. It is also important to create security that will preserve certain essential liberties, such as the freedom of speech.

Security and liberty must be balanced in order to achieve order in a society. Without one, the other will hurt the people.

I, personally, go with security, as I don't understand what good use Liberty does you if you're dead....

I go with liberty... If nothing else, I'm at liberty to defend my own rights...

And I think the purpose of government is merely to secure the liberties of the people equally... You're not limiting someones liberty when you're penalizing for taking away a liberty from another (which is all crime can really be to me).

Any government that needs to suspend my rights to protect me, is no longer my government, rather they are my enemy.

I will go a bit off-topic now, it's just a little so bear with me:

I was in Berlin this weekend, to participate in a demonstration against surveillance-paranoia and with the and for freedom. Due to my lacking financial means, I was in various trains or on platforms for >20 hours. It was absolutely worth it. We were 15000 people there, The day was sunny, the mood was good, and even though there were some anarchist idiots who just used this event to cause trouble, I think it was a great success. If you know some German, you can find pictures (http://ptrace.fefe.de/demo-bilder/) (also here (http://www.winfuture.de/screenshots/Demonstration-gegen-Vorratsdatenspeicherung-2700-1.html) and here (http://pixxelfriends.de/freiheit-statt-angst/)).

Any questions about my stance on this issue?

Ok, well, I'm new here, so I decided to start with a topic that, I suppose, is somewhat less heated than most debates, and is a lot easier to participate in, the classic Security Or Liberty? debate.

Basic concept is that it's very hard to have Security while having Liberty, and visa versa, and therefore if we want either, we will have to sacrifice the other. I, personally, go with security, as I don't understand what good use Liberty does you if you're dead, despite what Ben Franklin says about the whole "deserving of neither" thing. Of course, I wouldn't go for like, completely eradicating liberties for the sake of complete, 100%, absurd security. I mean, the only way we'd achieve that is if we were god damned robots, which I don't plan to be. I mean, security cameras on every street corner will probably prevent more crime than allowing police to perform random full body searches on whomever they want, whenever they want.

So yeah, what's your take on the whole thing?

Also, don't be afraid to point out if I do something noobish in the debate, I'm open to criticism, since I'm not that experienced yet.

You can have security while having liberty, so long as you're willing to forsake privacy.

Mirkai... privacy is something which is a part of liberty. Without it, you are completely and utterly dependending on the benevolence of the state.

Mirkai... privacy is something which is a part of liberty. Without it, you are completely and utterly dependending on the benevolence of the state.

How so? People already know how to find me just by looking in a phone book. If the police could track my location, why would I care? If the police could track everyone's location, they'd only have cause to use it when looking for someone specific; IE, someone fleeing the law.

And when I step outside my house, I forsake my privacy; I can still do anything I want short of whipping my junk out or hurting someone.

The UN charter of rights (or whatever it's called) is, pretty much the summation of essential liberties.

Those things which should not be rights are obvious (murder, torture, rape etc.).

Privacy is a bona-fide right in my view (as far as actions undertaken are not open and public, of course!).

You will end up with something like North Korea, or to a greater extreme, the chin dynasty (if your government can kill you at any time, that's not exactly the most secure place to be in).



The what dynasty? Was it before or after the Jaw dynasty? You are probably refering to the Qin Dynasty, which was the first dynasty to unify China, whose records of human rights were just as awfull as any big civilazation at the time or you are refering to the Qing dynasty, the last dynasty of China, whose judicial system could not kill you at any time.

or "rights" for a chair.
i mean a corporation.
currently this non-human legal creation has "rights".
since 1886 supreme court Santa Clara Co vs Southern Pacific Railroad.
thus anybody smart enough to apply for a corporate charter can do a lot of things with "limited liability" that a natural human person cannot.
we could change this BACK to the way it was for the first half of the US...make stock holders/owners liable once again.

Are you sure you fully grasp what you are advocating? By removing limited liability and a corporation (and many other organisations' status as juristic persons) you would effectively reduce every business to a sole trader or partnership. By buying shares in a business you would have to place your own property at risk should the business fail to cover its debts. How many people would buy shares (or accept them as party of their employment contract) if there was a risk that doing so would see your home sold if the business ran out of money? Consider the businesses that have collapsed as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis such as New Century - should the hundreds of shareholders in New Century have their possessions sold to cover the company's debts?