»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Freedom of Choice v. Security
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Freedom of Choice v. Security |
|
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash 
|
Would you sacrifice freedom for security? What if living in a "free" society meant you were subjecting yourself and your loved ones to risk of harm (whether physical, financial, etc.)? What if living in a "secure" society meant you had very few personal freedoms or opportunities to express your individuality? < !signature--> Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 12-09-1999).] |
||
| © Copyright 1999 Jim Bouder - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Jim I wonder if you don't already know my answer to this one LOL. But I need to clarify that in my view there would be no threats in a truly free society. Freedom doesn't mean anarchy but rather that you have rights and that those rights are inalienable and protected.  Angel"I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I think this is a really interesting question. I do hope it gets more interesting as people get more into specific situations. I've asked Japanese students this question and the predominant answer was safety; I've asked Korean students this question and the predominant answer was freedom of choice. The interesting thing about Korean students is that when I asked whether they would rather have freedom of choice without self determination (say, for example, becoming a state of the USA) or a dictator who was Korean (they've already had that), the answer was unanimous: they'll take the dictator. Come on guys, muddy this one up a little bit. It's not the simple answer everyone thinks it is. Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, after a thirty-five year occupation by Japan and God knows how many invasions over the last thousand years, Koreans want to rule themselves -- good or bad. As far as not being simple, I was assuming that most people here would choose freedom of choice over safety (Americans usually say that kind of thing). In such a situation, would you rather have your child be put to death so that you can state your opinion? As far as safety over freedom, I think that causes its own problems of course. If you can't state your opinion, are you really safe? Brad |
||
|
Athas Junior Member
since 1999-12-04
Posts 24Edinburgh, Scotland |
I appologise for any confusion but I was wondering what freedom meant here. Does It mean freedom to choise or freedom of thought or both or something entirely different? I think if it is freedom of thought and the right to free speech that this would be preferable to security. I suppose that this could stem from my belife that if enough people have political freedom and freedom of speach that the people would create a society that was fairly secure. However security also means a lot to me so I suppose I could be stated as being on the line on this one. I think to have any viable society you need both. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
These are actually difficult questions for me to answer. As an ideal I would prefer to live in a "free" society where my speech, religion, and right to property were protected. But this ideal, I think, depends on others within the community being willing to respect those freedoms. If a "free" society could not reasonably guaranty the safety of my family, what would be so special about living in a free society? On the other hand, in a "secure" society, what is keeping those in power from becoming corrupt and, as Trevor described the Chinese in another thread, those in power become Moronalists? This is why I do not fit into either the Capitalist or Socialist categories. The freedoms of the people in a "free" society depend a great deal on the goodness of the general populous. The security in a "secure" society depends a great deal on the goodness of those providing the security. I do not have much confidence in the either (present company excluded, of course  ) so I find myself without an answer to my own questions.Hope I didn't confuse anyone with that. Brad: I am relatively familiar with the Korean problem. The Koreans have a sad history and are trying hard to establish a cultural identity. I can understand their wanting to be self-governing. Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Brad I don't think I understand how any one could call themselves free if stating their opinion would result in their kid being killed. I have tried to understand what you mean by this, could you provide me with an example of freedom that results in killing? In my opinion freedom and inalienable rights actually bring real safety. To me there is no either or here. Angel "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Brad, you may be right that most Americans say it, but I think far too few recognize the differences and fewer still put their vote where their mouth is. Angel, I think this also addresses your question. As just one example, the US Constitution gives us the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, a freedom that has been slowly eroded over the past twenty and especially the past ten years. Why? Because when the police see an individual who is "obviously up to no good," we want them to stop the individual before anyone is harmed. So it becomes okay to detain that individual, question them, search them for drugs or weapons, and even throw them in jail based on the results of that search. We want to feel secure from these "bad" individuals, so we let our politicians constantly revise what constitutes "unreasonable" search and seizure. And in the process, as we take away the bad guy's rights, we relinquish our own at the same time. Should schools be allowed to search the students for weapons in attempt to prevent a reoccurrence of Columbine? Should employers be allowed to do drug testing? Should vehicles driving a stretch of Florida highway known to used by drug smugglers be pulled over because they look suspicious? All of these increase our security. All of them decrease our freedom. "But if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." Except, perhaps, the loss of one more freedom. I wrote, in another thread some time back, that any freedom will be abused by someone. In the past several decades, as crime rates increase and we've felt out security threatened, the response has been to try to eliminate those abuses. What too many people haven't realized yet is that the only way to eliminate the abuse is to eliminate the freedom - for all of us. Here's what I think is a very simple rule of thumb, one that has few if any exceptions to it: Any time you give the police more power it will be at the cost of your freedom. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: "Any time you give the police more power it will be at the cost of your freedom." I think you are right on that point. But I think the point fails to address the fundamental problem. Erosion of rights by legislative action is most often reactive. It is a symptom of a larger problem but isn't, I think, THE problem. Columbine is a good example of this. In the USA on the very day of the high school shooting there were politicians using the tragedy as a bully pulpit for gun control legislation. Was the lack of effective gun control measures the cause of the tragedy? Of course not! So what was? I think the larger problem (and I can only speak for the American problem) is that there is no strong sense of moral restraint being instilled in people in our country (that is, the US). Without restraining moral forces within, people look for restraint from the outside and, voila, suddenly "right and wrong" are synonymous with "legal and illegal". What was once something that was policed with good conscience is now something policed by law enforcement agencies. Freedom requires personal responsibility. I do not believe Constitutional idealism is practical without personal, moral responsibility. Would I be willing to subject my children to weapons searches in their public school? Of course I would, at this present time. I am confident that I have instilled the moral restraints in my children to not violate others' rights but I am not confident that other parents have effectively done the same. So in order to be better assured of their safety I am willing to sacrifice some of my (and their) freedom until, without the need of legislation, some form of moral restraint has returned that assures me of their safety. Man, was that a rant or what? Take aim and fire, folks! Jim "If I rest, I rust." -Martin Luther |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jim, I completely agree (and might suggest the "why" and "how" of that would be another thread), but all that really does is take us back to the same resolution so many discussion in Philosophy do - if everyone would just act the way they should (dare I say, "Respect and tolerance?") then Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, and Freedom would be irrelevant concepts. We could just live together - happy, safe, and with few real concerns. Unfortunately, we all know that's not the case. So we have to make choices. And, judging by your last post, in at least some instances you're willing to come down off the fence and make a choice for security over freedom. I think many, probably even most, would agree with you. And, in good conscience, I can't disagree either. But I would hope everyone realized it was a choice and, like all choices, carried a cost with it. Unlike many other choices, though, the cost of this kind rises each time we make it. At some point there will be no more freedoms left to give away. Will we then be perfectly secure? Or will security then be in danger, not from the populous, but from those we've given so much control over our lives? |
||
|
Angel Rand Member
since 1999-09-04
Posts 134London UK, and Zurich Switzerland |
Ron I certainly agree with you there. And the horrid thing is that they vote themselves out of their rights step by step without ever knowing it as they do not seem to see the full picture. This is something that happens everywhere though, not just America. Crime will always happen if you ban guns or not (just an example). But I do still believe that the Objectivist Utopia (like Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged) is the best there could be. :wishful sighing : AngelPS: that was to your second last post. Had the reply window open for hours wile chatting sorry < !signature--> "I swear -- by my life and by my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged "Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand [This message has been edited by Angel Rand (edited 12-10-1999).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
I'm gonna agree with what has been touched on by Brad. Are we really "safe" if we can't express ourselves? In a "safe" society what would be the penalty of expressing an opinion that was undesirable? Futhermore I'd like to add that you can't really be free if you are not safe. Not much freedom if you are afraid to leave your house because someone is waiting to harm you. I don't think we cac truly have freedom without being secure and we can't have security without being free....so where does that leave us...I don't have a "bleeping" clue, self gov't would be nice but an unrealistic solution at this point in human history. And that's my nickel and a half. Take care, Trevor |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
