How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Freedom of Choice v. Security
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Freedom of Choice v. Security

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


0 posted 12-09-1999 07:30 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

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?


 Jim

"If I rest, I rust."  -Martin Luther



[This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 12-09-1999).]
Angel Rand
Member
since 09-04-99
Posts 140
London UK, and Zurich Switzerl


1 posted 12-09-1999 12:00 PM       View Profile for Angel Rand   Email Angel Rand   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Angel Rand

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 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


2 posted 12-09-1999 11:05 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

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 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


3 posted 12-10-1999 05:12 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

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 12-04-1999
Posts 23
Edinburgh, Scotland


4 posted 12-10-1999 08:29 AM       View Profile for Athas   Email Athas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Athas

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 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


5 posted 12-10-1999 09:14 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

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 09-04-99
Posts 140
London UK, and Zurich Switzerl


6 posted 12-10-1999 01:13 PM       View Profile for Angel Rand   Email Angel Rand   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Angel Rand

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 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


7 posted 12-10-1999 02:02 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I was assuming that most people here would choose freedom of choice over safety (Americans usually say that kind of thing).


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 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


8 posted 12-10-1999 02:40 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

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 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


9 posted 12-10-1999 03:34 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

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 09-04-99
Posts 140
London UK, and Zurich Switzerl


10 posted 12-10-1999 04:36 PM       View Profile for Angel Rand   Email Angel Rand   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Angel Rand

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 :
   Angel
PS: that was to your second last post. Had the reply window open for hours wile chatting sorry  


 "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 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


11 posted 12-10-1999 11:51 PM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

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
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Freedom of Choice v. Security Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors