NationStates Jolt Archive

Which would you prefer? A 1984 style society except without the constant missles? Or a war-torn world where you can do whatever the heck you want?

Freedom. Also, in before poll.

option b, if only so I can turn it into a 1984 type of world, with me in comand, of course.

False dichotomy, ftw.

A 1984 society would mean universal tyranny, poverty, squalor, and crime for all those not in the Upper Party sects of life, and death to all those who so much as think of disagreeing with the ruling regime.

Where's the security, again?

A war-torn world where you could do whatever you want would result in you having no freedom except the freedom to end your pitiful existence as established society is broken down and your daily life is consumed by the need to simply subsist and survive against the roving gangs of murderers, thieves, and rapists who are also doing whatever they want.

Where's the freedom, again?

A 1984 society would mean universal tyranny, poverty, squalor, and crime for all those not in the Upper Party sects of life, and death to all those who so much as think of disagreeing with the ruling regime.

Where's the security, again?
Theres no thoughtcrime! I was just using 1984 as the invaision of privacy and freedom.

The very invasion of privacy and freedom is a violation of personal security as well. The two concepts are intrinsically intertwined. Without security, there is no freedom, and without freedom, there is no security. Attempting to separate the two results in a dystopia no matter what the intended result.

Freedom! Liberation!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

;)

those who surrender liberty for security will have and deserve neither - paraphrase of the founding fathers of the united states. if the choice is totalitarianism or anarchy, i chose anarchy. i would prefer a constitutional republic, but now the constitution means nothing if a politician decides it's in the way of his/her agenda.

those who surrender liberty for security will have and deserve neither - paraphrase of the founding fathers of the united states. if the choice is totalitarianism or anarchy, i chose anarchy. i would prefer a constitutional republic, but now the constitution means nothing if a politician decides it's in the way of his/her agenda.

You know politicians drafted and ratified the Constitution, right?

Anarchy is just as bad of an outcome as totalitarianism. Personally, I'd flip a quarter over it, living in a single party nightmare might be just as interesting as fleeing from Lord Humongous and his gang.

Oops. I meant to choose "whichever I can throw pies in". But Freedom is nice too. :)

It worries me that even one person said security.

These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

You know politicians drafted and ratified the Constitution, right?

Anarchy is just as bad of an outcome as totalitarianism. Personally, I'd flip a quarter over it, living in a single party nightmare might be just as interesting as fleeing from Lord Humongous and his gang.

yeah, freedom without any security would be like hobb's leviathan, where people just fight and nothing gets done. Anarchy basically.

I choose pie-throwing. I can't believe no one else has done so yet.

I choose pie-throwing. I can't believe no one else has done so yet.

I accidentally clicked the wrong choice.

Security. When I am about to die any second, I don't particularly care much if I can eventually vote in 4 years.

Freedom...no, security.....wait, freedom....no, security....dammit, I want freedom on security!

No Paulbots invading this thread?

:eek:

You can take my pants, but you can never take my Freedom!!

A government which is interested in protecting the righteous and being a terror to the evil doers; a Church which preaches the Gospel, administers the sacraments, and practices discipline; and a society which takes care of itself in all other aspects.

So, neither.

yeah, freedom without any security would be like hobb's leviathan, where people just fight and nothing gets done. Anarchy basically.

The absolute monarch (the "leviathan") was proposed as a solution to the state of nature where all fight against all and nothing gets done.

Anarchism is a similar proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), designed to end the perpetual war, although it does not call for a central authority. Indeed, it recognizes that it has always been the king who prefers the perpetual war.

"[Anarchy is]...a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune." -- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon).

"Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." - Gustave de Molinari

Indeed, there is nothing more dangerous than the state, and nothing more unnecessary. Security does not come from the state, and most especially not through the paper constraints on its arbitrary power (elections, constitutions, checks and balances, parties), but only through the reciprocal obligations of free people engaging in peaceful cooperation with one another.

I for one, welcome our new Republican Overlords.





Oh wait.

"Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." - Gustave de Molinari

Indeed, there is nothing more dangerous than the state, and nothing more unnecessary. Security does not come from the state, and most especially not through the paper constraints on its arbitrary power (elections, constitutions, checks and balances, parties), but only through the reciprocal obligations of free people engaging in peaceful cooperation with one another.

Indeed.

They can write all the laws they like that say murder is illegal...it still doesn't stop someone from breaking into your home and shooting you in the face, it just means they'll lock the guy up if they happen to catch him.

Freedom.

Definitely security. I find freedom to be overrated.

how can anyone feel secure when their survival depends on their ability to coerce each other? how can anyone feel free if they cannot feel secure?

but maybe more to the point of THIS thread; DOES trading off freedom for security actually create any more security? or only police state paranoia?

have the WORDS "freedom" and "security" become THEMSELVES such icons that their supposed meanings have become meaningless?

=^^=
.../\...

If I had to choose between them I'd have to say freedom, though I voted for a mixture on the poll

You can take my pants, but you can never take my Freedom!!

*takes your pants*

False dichotomy, ftw.

winner.

False dichotomy, ftw.
That's why I voted "neither." ;)

Depends on what your definition of Freedom and security are.
To me Freedom describes something that is impossible to reach except in states of intoxication and insanity.
Security describes an all powerful force to protect people.
In an ideal world both are possible.
In this world neither is possible.

Which would you prefer? A 1984 style society except without the constant missles? Or a war-torn world where you can do whatever the heck you want?

I'd prefer to be presented with a false choice. Oh, wait. You just did that.

In recent years, many governments have tried to present the argument that to keep safe from terrorism, we've got to sacrifice some liberty (which I use as a synonym of freedom).

But this is ridiculous; we will never, can never, be 100% safe. Not just from terrorism, especially from 'home-grown' terrorists like the kids from Leeds, but from many other threats to security. The mass-paranoia that we are not 100% safe is utterly bizarre and highly dangerous.

Contrary to what deluded, overpaid columnists like to repeatedly state, September 11th changed very little about the world. Terrorism, whether it be religious fundementals, militant nationalists or whoever, has existed for a very long time. Relatively, it has affected few people.

Far more people are killed every day by disease (much of which is preventable), war, starvation, even car crashes. But are we banning cars, ignoring habeas corpus for thosed involved in traffic accidents?