• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freedom vs Safety

Freedom vs Safety: Which do you value most?


  • Total voters
    39

ronpaulvoter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
627
Reaction score
111
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Which do you value most -- freedom or safety?
 
You begin with a fallacious false premise. This is not a choice of one excluding the other.
 
I value both. And you need both. But I would not trade possible safety concerns for freedoms, which is what I think you are really asking. Being scared of what might happen isn't reason to lose freedoms.
 
Vague generalities lead to inaccurate assessments. In the very broad premise that is presented, if you are dead you have no freedoms, so safety is obviously more important. When looking at the two, there are tradeoffs that have to be made. You can certainly arrive at a position of mostly free and mostly safe where both are acceptable.
 
Freedom for whom? Freedom for employers to let working people die to save them a few dollars? Freedom from fear for working people? Safety for the very rich to make profits? Safety for the world's people from armed invasion? Things are a little more complex than the teabags pretend, you know.
 
I value my freedom to be safe.
 
I would argue that "safety" is not what people are looking for...it's certainty. Hate to say I was influenced by a movie with this thinking, but the Joker's speech to Dent in the hospital is germane here:

Nobody panics when the expected people get killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plans are horrifying. If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. But when I say one little old mayor will die, everyone loses their minds! Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos.

Also, I would say that people want the right of self-determination, not "freedom". Most people want to live under a certain set of rules and guidelines, it's just that they want to live under ones in accord with their own moral makeup.
 
I voted freedom... but to be honest, the question is really much more complex than that.

A certain level of order and safety is necessary for freedom to be worth much. Somalia, for instance... you can be as free as you have the armed might to enforce, but no more. Someone with more armed might can come along and kill you or take what you have. That's anarchy.

Too much order strangles freedom, too little order makes freedom of little value. Excessive concern over safety can infringe of freedom, but too much lassiez-faire and caveat-emptor can make freedom too perilous to exercise.

There's a certain balance that maximizes the real value of freedom, and in recent years I've become convinced of the necessity for gov't to prevent overwhelmingly powerful private concerns (ie corporations, for one) from trampling the rights of the individual.

However much we may wish it were not so, no man is an island. We exist as part of a society, and there is an inevitable give and take.
 
Freedom without safety isn't freedom, safety without freedom isn't safety...I highly value both
 
Neither. I value honor. As long as the government behaves honorably, and allows me to behave honorably, then freedom and security will take care of themselves.
 
Which do you value most -- freedom or safety?

WAY TO GENERAL
everything is circumstantial and they are not always separate sometimes they are very much intertwined.
 
There is breaches and there is punishing of crimes. Freedom wins over safety period. If you want safety you want to be controlled regardless of how much safety you want. Liberty doesn't include the ability to harm others in a society so naturally there you go, punish the crimes nothing more. There is your answer to a question that is obvious.

People naturally want safety so they use prevention techniques and struggle to find a balance unaware there is no balance of preventative techniques. I doubt the majority of people will ever figure it out either.
 
Last edited:
I voted freedom... but to be honest, the question is really much more complex than that.

A certain level of order and safety is necessary for freedom to be worth much. Somalia, for instance... you can be as free as you have the armed might to enforce, but no more. Someone with more armed might can come along and kill you or take what you have. That's anarchy.

Too much order strangles freedom, too little order makes freedom of little value. Excessive concern over safety can infringe of freedom, but too much laissez-faire and caveat-emptor can make freedom too perilous to exercise.

There's a certain balance that maximizes the real value of freedom, and in recent years I've become convinced of the necessity for gov't to prevent overwhelmingly powerful private concerns (ie corporations, for one) from trampling the rights of the individual.

However much we may wish it were not so, no man is an island. We exist as part of a society, and there is an inevitable give and take.
Stated much better than I am capable..
I also voted "freedom" - the result of being American...
"Safety" is, IMO, out of control.
Buy any product, and one is barraged with the "safety-nazi" agenda..
I'd love to have some freedom from this.
Balance is the key.
And knowledge is the key chain.
Also, respect prevents broken keys.
 
I would to have the freedom to cross the street whenever I like, but that would put my safety in serious jeapordy.

I would love to drive my car without a seatbelt, but that would put my safety in serious jeapordy.

You see, there needs to be a balance between safety & freedom, otherwise bad things happen.
 
I would to have the freedom to cross the street whenever I like, but that would put my safety in serious jeapordy.

I would love to drive my car without a seatbelt, but that would put my safety in serious jeapordy.

You see, there needs to be a balance between safety & freedom, otherwise bad things happen.

Bad things happen anyway. You don't avoid bad things with prevention tactics, you just destroy liberty.
 
Bad things happen anyway. You don't avoid bad things with prevention tactics, you just destroy liberty.

no, making it illegal to cross the street against the light, saves lives. many...many lives.

is my freedom destroyed..because I can't cross the street while cars are driving by?

:lamo
 
no, making it illegal to cross the street against the light, saves lives. many...many lives.

is my freedom destroyed..because I can't cross the street while cars are driving by?

:lamo

Do you really know it saves lives or are you just assuming it does?
 
Do you really know it saves lives or are you just assuming it does?

you're actually asking me if don't walk signals actually save lives??????????????????

what do you think would happen if we allowed folks to cross the street whenever they like?

:doh
 
you're actually asking me if don't walk signals actually save lives??????????????????

what do you think would happen if we allowed folks to cross the street whenever they like?

:doh

People would be aware of the danger? /Shrug
 
Bad things happen anyway. You don't avoid bad things with prevention tactics, you just destroy liberty.

So putting that double yellow line down the middle of the street does not prevent bad things from happening on that road every day that thousands of cars drive on it?

Do you want the 'liberty' (what ever the hell that means,) to drive anywhere you want to on that road? Do you defend the 'liberty' of others to use the road as they please? Or do you believe in laws designed with prevention in mind?
 
So putting that double yellow line down the middle of the street does not prevent bad things from happening on that road every day that thousands of cars drive on it?

No, I really don't find it saves lives. Just like I don't really think speed limits do much anything.

Do you want the 'liberty' (what ever the hell that means,) to drive anywhere you want to on that road? Do you defend the 'liberty' of others to use the road as they please? Or do you believe in laws designed with prevention in mind?

Kind of a pointless question.
 
People would be aware of the danger? /Shrug

and some fools would try to beat the cars, since its no longer illegal.

Don't Walk lights save lives.

....and you think this is an unjust attack upon liberty & freedom.

;)
 
Last edited:
and some fools would try to beat the cars, since its no longer illegal.

Don't Walk lights save lives.

....and you think this is an unjust attack upon liberty & freedom.

;)

Some people are retarded and try to beat the cars now, run stop lights, speed, pass on double yellow lines when there is not a opening, drink and drive, etc. The argument of many you save with this measures is almost entirely academic. You save some yes, but the cost of doing it usually causing no harm so you are being punished for it far outweighs it. If harm does occur usually you are dealing with other charges anyway.
 
Some people are retarded and try to beat the cars now, run stop lights, speed, pass on double yellow lines when there is not a opening, drink and drive, etc. The argument of many you save with this measures is almost entirely academic. You save some yes, but the cost of doing it usually causing no harm so you are being punished for it far outweighs it. If harm does occur usually you are dealing with other charges anyway.

Not to have law benefits only the very powerful. That is why the capitalists want it: they can kill everyone else and not pay compensation.
 
Back
Top Bottom