• 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
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.

I didn't say not to have laws and capitalists do believe in laws. I should know, I am one after all.
 
Without some safety there I can’t exercise any freedom. And, sometimes without freedom I can’t achieve my safety. What was your poll again?
 
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

—Benjamin Franklin—​
 
I value both. We live out in the country by choice. We can have our livestock and the whole neigborhood is full of barkey dogs. However, I'm pretty sure nobody on our block has a meth lab, yet. So, generally your freedom is okay with me, as long as it doesn't indanger my safety.
 
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

—Benjamin Franklin—​

that's nice, but do you believe that Stop Lights & Don't Walk signs take away essential freedom?
 
Complete freedom would be anarchy. Complete safety would be life in a box. Balance in all things. Even moderation.
 
Freedoms are guaranteed though overridden by subsequent legal maneuvers and political shenanigans. Safety is never guaranteed and is more our personal responsibility and personal supervision and constant vigilance than that of any sitting government. Law enforcement and the judiciary as well as medical practioners merely react to post events while we ourselves can sometimes, not always but sometimmes be proactive and interdictive.
 
How can you feel safe without freedom? Without it means someone else is controlling your destiny and surely doesn't care about you as much as you do.
 
Which do you value most -- freedom or safety?
Of the two, its "more" ,not "most".
And, the answer is freedom - freedom from the safety nazis.
But, of course, without reasonable safety, there is no freedom.
The keyword is "reasonable".
 
Freedoms are guaranteed though overridden by subsequent legal maneuvers and political shenanigans. Safety is never guaranteed and is more our personal responsibility and personal supervision and constant vigilance than that of any sitting government. Law enforcement and the judiciary as well as medical practitioners merely react to post events while we ourselves can sometimes, not always but sometimes be proactive and interdictive.
Strange thinking, IMO.
You seem to not care for the ways things are done....or do you wish absolute freedoms ?
We are trying to guaranty safety and have been for some time...
A man can drive his motor-vehicle into a bridge abutment at 60 mph and simply walk away..
One can try to take 0.0 ,zero care of his body, but health care requirements will prevent this....its coming...
Cry "FIRE" in the crowded movie theater and laws will protect the "liar",...."he is nuts"...no punishment.
The wealthy may steal from the poor, and they make the laws to protect themselves from recrimination..
 
Strange thinking, IMO.
You seem to not care for the ways things are done....or do you wish absolute freedoms ?
We are trying to guaranty safety and have been for some time...
A man can drive his motor-vehicle into a bridge abutment at 60 mph and simply walk away..
One can try to take 0.0 ,zero care of his body, but health care requirements will prevent this....its coming...
Cry "FIRE" in the crowded movie theater and laws will protect the "liar",...."he is nuts"...no punishment.
The wealthy may steal from the poor, and they make the laws to protect themselves from recrimination..

No one is saying absolute freedom. Read my original post in this thread. That is what my problem is and you might realize it doesn't pertain to all laws.

Though I would protect the cry fire guy. Almost all of your examples are exactly what I have a problem with, and are tyrannical by design.
 
I asked Henrin this

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?


his answer


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

Amazing. Just simply amazing. I dearly hope you are not in the highway safety business. Your extremism on this issue tells us volumes why libertarianism fails to catch on with the American people who I fail to see clamoring to get rid of highway divider lines or speed limits. But perhaps you know of a national movement of citizens to do both?

Henrin invoked LIBERTY and I asked him this regarding 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?



his evasive reply


Kind of a pointless question.

Actually it is indeed the CENTRAL question to one who uses LIBERTY as a word the way a late night lounge lizard uses the word LOVE fifteen minutes before the closing of the bar directed at anything still at body temperature not yet claimed.

And your intentions are the same.

So how about it henrin - do you defend the liberty of both yourself and others to use the roads as you please to use them?
 
Traditionally this question revolves around the requirement that Motorcycle riders be required the wear a helmet or drivers being required to wear seat belts.
 
No one is saying absolute freedom. Read my original post in this thread. That is what my problem is and you might realize it doesn't pertain to all laws.

Though I would protect the cry fire guy. Almost all of your examples are exactly what I have a problem with, and are tyrannical by design.

Stop Lights are tyrannical by design?

Don't Walk lights are tyrannical design?

Stop signs are tyrannical by design?

requireing seatbelts and motorcycle helments, is tyrannical by design?

requiring smke detectors & CO alarms, is tyrannical by design?

.......perhaps you should take a trip to North Korea someday, and experience REAL tyranny. Cause honestly, you're really complaining about a whole lot of nothing.
 
Stop Lights are tyrannical by design?

Don't Walk lights are tyrannical design?

Stop signs are tyrannical by design?

Already dealt with.

requireing seatbelts and motorcycle helments, is tyrannical by design?

Yes, why should I have to wear a helmet or wear my seatbelt? This isn't even safety of others like some of the other issues that I disagree with, this is just my safety which is even more ridiculous. Why can't I have control over it?

requiring smke detectors & CO alarms, is tyrannical by design?

Yes. I shouldn't have to put safety devices in my home or make sure they all work.

And besides they are ****ing annoying. Which one is ****ing beeping?! LETS FIND WALDO!

.......perhaps you should take a trip to North Korea someday, and experience REAL tyranny. Cause honestly, you're really complaining about a whole lot of nothing.

There is different levels of tyranny.
 
...Yes, why should I have to wear a helmet or wear my seatbelt? This isn't even safety of others like some of the other issues that I disagree with, this is just my safety which is even more ridiculous. Why can't I have control over it?

Yes. I shouldn't have to put safety devices in my home or make sure they all work.

And besides they are ****ing annoying. Which one is ****ing beeping?! LETS FIND WALDO!

There is different levels of tyranny.

so you believe that The People, should allow everyone to make seriously dangerous decisions that put their lives in serious jeapordy?

I guess this means you believe in the legalization of crack cocaine, heroine, meth, etc?
 
Already dealt with.



Yes, why should I have to wear a helmet or wear my seatbelt? This isn't even safety of others like some of the other issues that I disagree with, this is just my safety which is even more ridiculous. Why can't I have control over it?



Yes. I shouldn't have to put safety devices in my home or make sure they all work.

And besides they are ****ing annoying. Which one is ****ing beeping?! LETS FIND WALDO!



There is different levels of tyranny.
Strange that I would agree with Henrin ... to a degree.
I am against the helmet laws and the seat belt laws.
I do drive about with the belt a-hanging; but I do use it when I feel that I should.
I am against forcing people to do what others think is better for them....
 
so you believe that The People, should allow everyone to make seriously dangerous decisions that put their lives in serious jeapordy?

I guess this means you believe in the legalization of crack cocaine, heroine, meth, etc?

Yes, I do believe in that. People should be allowed to do what they want unless it DOES result in harm.
 
oh, so we should have total freedom..unless its harms oneself by your standards?

I put forward the idea that if your action violated the rights of another you should be held accountable but not before that time.
 
I put forward the idea that if your action violated the rights of another you should be held accountable but not before that time.

crossing the street against the light, puts others at great risk.

driving though a stop sign, puts others at great risk.

you see that...right?
 
In the context of the increased security measures that we deal with every day as a result of the war on terror, I said freedom. By abandoning the freedom that we hold dear, we became less like ourselves and more like our enemies. But to be even more specific, the illusion of safety is worthless. We are actually no more in danger from terrorism than we were ten or twenty years ago. 9/11 was an incredible longshot and we could have continued, without changing anything, without actually being in more danger. Now we have a substantially increased amount of scrutiny on ourselves, with minimal (if any at all) effect on whether or not we'll actually be subject to a terrorist attack by foreigners.

Freedom and safety are both very important, but the illusion of safety is worthless, and sacrificing freedom to allay a panic is disastrous.
 
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.
Mostly free....I'l put that one right up there with tony hayward's 'little people'' and queen pelosi's 'got to pass the bill to know what's in it'.your dog is mostly free.because it has a .....master.
 
Back
Top Bottom