Political Crossfire Forums

Thrilla · Joined: 23 May 2005 Posts: 22323 Location: Sin City

micfranklin wrote: Freedom should always come first. what happens when faced with a scenario in which ensuring security is the only way to ensure liberty?

nanite1018 · Joined: 01 Oct 2006 Posts: 316 Location: Georgia

Thrilla wrote: I find it truely odd that the same folks on the left who cry out in favor of thier freedoms over security... are of the same ilk of those who would limit the individual the freedom to protect themselves through the use of firearms

so if you dont want the government providing security.. and you dont want the individual citizens provding security.... exactly who is supposed to be providing security? or do you believe that no security is neccessary?

Who said giving people firearms promotes security? I want the police to enforce the law, but only when the law is just. Unjust laws should not be enforced, no matter who made them. With proper oversight, the police could very easily protect us from what we need to be protected from, thieves, murderers, rapists, and other criminals. That isn't taking away liberty, it is enforcing it. You are not free to rape or kill, and if someone is, then no one is truly free.

Government provides security by making sure no one infringes upon another's liberty, not by removing someone's liberty's. At least that's how its supposed to work.

Kumar · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 16322 Location: Prague

micfranklin wrote: Freedom should always come first.
It's only sensible to at least consider temporarily giving up some freedoms if circumstances are such that there is a risk of all freedoms becoming permanently eliminated.

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21323 Location: Chicago

If I cannot live free, I don't want to live.

Wonderful saying....we all know it....

Give me liberty or give me death.

I live those words. I live in Chicago, travel frequently to NY. for about 8 years now. I've always been around "high profile" areas, but I swear to God, I will not give up my liberty or freedom for a damn pathetic criminal.

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21323 Location: Chicago

Thrilla wrote: micfranklin wrote: Freedom should always come first. what happens when faced with a scenario in which ensuring security is the only way to ensure liberty?

Can you elaborate? Scenario details are essential to determine opinion.

Thrilla · Joined: 23 May 2005 Posts: 22323 Location: Sin City

cool_chick wrote: If I cannot live free, I don't want to live.

Wonderful saying....we all know it....

Give me liberty or give me death.

I live those words. I live in Chicago, travel frequently to NY. for about 8 years now. I've always been around "high profile" areas, but I swear to God, I will not give up my liberty or freedom for a damn pathetic criminal. and there are people providing security in hopes that you wont have to give up your liberties :wink:

The dane · Joined: 26 Sep 2006 Posts: 4264

Thrilla wrote: I find it truely odd that the same folks on the left who cry out in favor of thier freedoms over security... are of the same ilk of those who would limit the individual the freedom to protect themselves through the use of firearms

so if you dont want the government providing security.. and you dont want the individual citizens provding security.... exactly who is supposed to be providing security? or do you believe that no security is neccessary?

I seriously can't believe those words were uttered by someone in the 21st century.

Firearms are illegal for private citizens in denmark yet I'm a lot safer than you (a lot fewer murders etc), care to explain why that is ?

Richard Owl Mirror · Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9002

mr.snruB wrote: Why did you choose what you chose?

Richard Owl Mirror · Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9002

Kumar wrote: micfranklin wrote: Freedom should always come first.
It's only sensible to at least consider temporarily giving up some freedoms if circumstances are such that there is a risk of all freedoms becoming permanently eliminated.

To whom would we 'temporarily give up' these Freedoms & Liberties ?
How can you trust 'them' to give these freedoms & liberties back once all danger has passed ?

Kumar · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 16322 Location: Prague

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
To whom would we 'temporarily give up' these Freedoms & Liberties ?
The state.

Quote: How can you trust 'them' to give these freedoms & liberties back once all danger has passed ?
It's not an issue at all provided that the right to vote is undisturbed. There have been numerous cases of what I describe, such as in WWII. In such times, there are issues of greater importance than the idealism of unadulterated liberty.

Falconer · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:05 am Post subject:

agentkgb wrote: Falconer wrote: Not for an essential liberty.

An unessential liberty...now there's a poll for you.
What would you define as "essential" and "unessential"?

The liberty of taking my aquafina on an airplane.

The liberty of calling someone in the middle east without the chance of the call being intercepted.

The liberty of shouting "bomb" on a bus, plane, movie theatre, etc.

Those I would define as an unessential liberties that I'm willing to trade for security.

Of course, A line is drawn when it adversely affects the real essential liberties that are put forth in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. Stuff like speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms. I think our current government has been walking a very thin tightrope between freedom and security after 9/11, and for the most part, they've done a good job.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

Falconer wrote: agentkgb wrote: Falconer wrote: Not for an essential liberty.

An unessential liberty...now there's a poll for you.
What would you define as "essential" and "unessential"?

The liberty of taking my aquafina on an airplane.

The liberty of calling someone in the middle east without the chance of the call being intercepted.

The liberty of shouting "bomb" on a bus, plane, movie theatre, etc.

Those I would define as an unessential liberties that I'm willing to trade for security.
I'd trade the first and third, but not the second. The second, IMO, falls into the right to privacy and is important.

The dane · Joined: 26 Sep 2006 Posts: 4264

Falconer wrote: agentkgb wrote: Falconer wrote: Not for an essential liberty.

An unessential liberty...now there's a poll for you.
What would you define as "essential" and "unessential"?

The liberty of taking my aquafina on an airplane.

The liberty of calling someone in the middle east without the chance of the call being intercepted.

The liberty of shouting "bomb" on a bus, plane, movie theatre, etc.

Those I would define as an unessential liberties that I'm willing to trade for security.

Of course, A line is drawn when it adversely affects the real essential liberties that are put forth in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. Stuff like speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms. I think our current government has been walking a very thin tightrope between freedom and security after 9/11, and for the most part, they've done a good job.

What about my right not to be labelled a terrorist without any proof, taken from my home by armed men, locked away in a secret prison, and subjected to whatever GWB has decided this week is an acceptable interrogation technique ? Is that also unessential ?

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

yea there are lots of those people. :roll:

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

callous wrote: TomPaine wrote: I answered "no", but then again, I'm not a right-wing authoritarian who secretly wants the government to be run by a dictatorship so they can feel safe and protected.

oooff,...that made me a little hot and bothered.

Well done sir. Well done.

This really begs the question, Are you unable or unwilling to understand those you disagree with?

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

thefranzkafkafront wrote: mr.snruB wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: He wasunt just talking about national security you know.

Who, me?

Well the orginal franklin quote, it applies to socail security as much as it dose national security.

When the goverment intervenes to make you 'safe' you only become less free, thats what he was talking about.

Wait a minute! are you saying Franklin was actually warning against the nanny state?

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

Patriarch wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Why did you choose what you chose?

Is this post relevent to anything? Have you given up any essential liberties that has affected your life for security?

The only liberties being denied are the ones to Canadian people. The Canadian government has banned satellite TV and the O'Reilly Factor, among other things. Also has made it a crime to use English up in the Quebec area. :evil:

Is your beef with your own government?

A crime to speak english?? no way!

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

lovebush wrote: Patriarch wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Why did you choose what you chose?

Is this post relevent to anything? Have you given up any essential liberties that has affected your life for security?

The only liberties being denied are the ones to Canadian people. The Canadian government has banned satellite TV and the O'Reilly Factor, among other things. Also has made it a crime to use English up in the Quebec area. :evil:

Is your beef with your own government?

A crime to speak english?? no way!
It's not true. French is the official language but it's not illegal to speak anything else.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

mr.snruB wrote: Ozzone wrote: Define "essential" liberties.

I would say any that your constitution or bill of rights grants you

Oh that wont be a problem, you see the liberals have been making the case that its a "living breathing document" so its plenty flexible to do away with a few liberties. and since they have also determined that God,s input is not welcome. rights are only a construct of government and are therefor NOT inalienable. :lol:

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

Kumar wrote: mr.snruB wrote: Kumar wrote: It depends on the circumstances.

What circumstances, and why?
In the event of an invasion, for example. It's an extreme example, but it does show how there are cases where some liberties are pushed aside temporarily due to an issue of greater importance. This was certainly the case during WWII.

The truth of the matter is that every one of us does forego some liberty in order to attain security and other luxuries. That is the nature of government. The vast majority of people prefer this system as opposed to the so-called "absolute liberty" advocated by some (specifically anarchists), which would take us back to a primitive era.

Good point, we can be pulled over by the police and are not free to ignore them. We give up that freedom in order to have safer roads, I would say that is a good trade of my freedom for security. so I guess my answer will be YES.