Liberty vs Security (1 Viewer)

[Billo_Really]

What is more important to you?

For me, I'm not willing to give up one Constitutional Right to fight the war on terror. Not one! Fight the war some other way than stripping me of my inalienable rights.

 

[FallingPianos]

What is more important to you?

For me, I'm not willing to give up one Constitutional Right to fight the war on terror. Not one! Fight the war some other way than stripping me of my inalienable rights.

I'm willing to give up some level of liberty for my security, but far from all of it. I dont mind all the airport security for example, even though it limits my liberty.

warrentless searches through my house are an entirely different matter.

 

[TurtleDude]

What is more important to you?

For me, I'm not willing to give up one Constitutional Right to fight the war on terror. Not one! Fight the war some other way than stripping me of my inalienable rights.

so like me, you completely oppose federal gun control:mrgreen:

 

[Mr.Clover]

What is more important to you?

For me, I'm not willing to give up one Constitutional Right to fight the war on terror. Not one! Fight the war some other way than stripping me of my inalienable rights.

We are giving up rights for the war on terror? Absurd! I've been living in Michigan for 10 years(almost) and I still have the same rights I had when I moved here.

 

[TurtleDude]

We are giving up rights for the war on terror? Absurd! I've been living in Michigan for 10 years(almost) and I still have the same rights I had when I moved here.

I wonder how billo feels about socialist security-that is certainly giving up liberty for security

same with unemployment insurance

national health care and some of the other leftwing nannystate ideas.

The left whines about the NSA surveillance of calls to Pakistan or Yemen claiming those violate their rights yet they push for crap like gun control and national health care which clearly affects my rights

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I wonder how billo feels about socialist security-that is certainly giving up liberty for security

same with unemployment insurance

national health care and some of the other leftwing nannystate ideas.

The left whines about the NSA surveillance of calls to Pakistan or Yemen claiming those violate their rights yet they push for crap like gun control and national health care which clearly affects my rights

You know, it's an interesting point; I am for both gun control, and freedom from warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act. How strange. Perhaps I am a hypocrite.

Or perhaps the right to bear arms is outdated and pointless, and arming people does far more to infringe on the rights of other people not to get shot, rather than protecting your right to defend yourself. But surely that couldn't be right.
Never mind; there's no point in arguing this, so I'll just say I'm wrong, and we'll pretend that having a 9mm keeps you safe.


Can I ask, though, how paying into social security, or universal health care, is trading liberty for security? What liberty, the liberty to have money while other people don't? Why is that a good thing? The freedom to watch people die because they can't afford health insurance? Is that really liberty?

I understand the general objection to the nanny state, but I am confused how it relates to the poll, which clearly has to do with more invasive and powerful law enforcement versus personal freedom. What does the nanny state have to do with that?

 

[TurtleDude]

You know, it's an interesting point; I am for both gun control, and freedom from warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act. How strange. Perhaps I am a hypocrite.

Or perhaps the right to bear arms is outdated and pointless, and arming people does far more to infringe on the rights of other people not to get shot, rather than protecting your right to defend yourself. But surely that couldn't be right.
Never mind; there's no point in arguing this, so I'll just say I'm wrong, and we'll pretend that having a 9mm keeps you safe.

20 plus years ago I was mugged. I blew out the stomach and rectum of one of the muggers with a 9MM, the other guy stopped choking me and crapped himself. I guess you want to argue that I was less safe with that 9mm

Now how the hell does merely OWNING a weapon infringe on your rights? does having a penis infringe on someone else's right not to be raped? Prove the right is outdated-you can't. its already against the law to shoot people for illegal or improper reasons. I believe most lefties are afraid of guns because it accentuates their own feelings of cowardice or their unwillingness to make personal safety and individual responsibility. You can google "A nation cowards" by Jeff Snyder for further edification on the issue

Can I ask, though, how paying into social security, or universal health care, is trading liberty for security? What liberty, the liberty to have money while other people don't? Why is that a good thing? The freedom to watch people die because they can't afford health insurance? Is that really liberty?

I understand the general objection to the nanny state, but I am confused how it relates to the poll, which clearly has to do with more invasive and powerful law enforcement versus personal freedom. What does the nanny state have to do with that?

taking my income for a forced facade of a retirement program is taking my liberty because income comes from my time and when you take my income you take my time. You lefties confuse rights with entitlements. You have the right to any health care you can afford. when I have to pay for your health care its not a right, its an entitlement that infringes on MY RIGHTS

 

[afr0byte]

20 plus years ago I was mugged. I blew out the stomach and rectum of one of the muggers with a 9MM, the other guy stopped choking me and crapped himself. I guess you want to argue that I was less safe with that 9mm

Wow, that's horrible. Unless they were actually threatening your life (and not just your wallet), that' s a horrible thing for you to have done.

 

[The Mark]

Wow, that's horrible. Unless they were actually threatening your life (and not just your wallet), that' s a horrible thing for you to have done.

Interesting point of view.

I find myself unable to agree with it.

I don't currently own a gun, but I am thinking about purchasing one.

Mainly because I want to practice, so that I know what to do with a gun if I ever need to use one. (I've never fired one in my life)

But back to the poll topic. My choice would be "Liberty".

Many of the current policies in use by the US government are, IMO, infringing on my (and many others) liberty.

There are too many laws, rules, etc. to mention that, IMO, infringe on my liberty.

However, (as someone put it) warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act do not, from my perspective. Somewhat the opposite point of view as yourself, CoffeeSaint.

Odd.

Yet interesting. :screwy

Now, for those of you to whom it applies, try to figure this one out: :violin:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Mr.Clover
We are giving up rights for the war on terror? Absurd! I've been living in Michigan for 10 years(almost) and I still have the same rights I had when I moved here.

Which are "none!" You live in Michigan. They send people to prison for life on a coke charge in Michigan. You people have some of the most ridiculously assbackward laws in the country. The only good thing to ever come out of Michigan was Magic Johnson.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
I wonder how billo feels about socialist security-that is certainly giving up liberty for security

I have no clue what your point is here.

 

[Billo_Really]

It is very interesting that we have this War on Terror, Iraq invasion and all this hyperbole coming from the Chaney presidency, yet no one in this poll has voted for security!

 

[dragonslayer]

What is more important to you?

For me, I'm not willing to give up one Constitutional Right to fight the war on terror. Not one! Fight the war some other way than stripping me of my inalienable rights.

I agree, not one constitutional right.. Otherwise what is the point of fight the war on terror. If we lose our rights, lose our freedom, end up with an ignorant Right Wing Radical dictator. Then what is the point of fighting terror from abroad and causing it at home.

 

[aps]

Wow, that's horrible. Unless they were actually threatening your life (and not just your wallet), that' s a horrible thing for you to have done.

afr0, I am wondering whether Turtle is a liar. He supposedly practices before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as an attorney, but when I asked him to provide legal reasoning, he asked me where I went to law school and made fun of me. I would think he would LOVE to discuss legal issues with me. Now he says he killed someone when being mugged? Me thinks he's a confabulator (someone who replaces fact with fiction) to say the least. :roll:

 

[dragonslayer]

so like me, you completely oppose federal gun

control:mrgreen:

I am liberal who loves the constitution and I am gun collector now, and hunter in the past. I belong to a local gun club and I shoot targets with my hand guns all the time.

I am ready to protect the nation and the constitution against Terrorists from overseas, and terrorists from the Radical Right.

 

[DeeJayH]

and yet..... Martial Law exists as an option
or the suspension of habeus corpus

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Can I ask, though, how paying into social security, or universal health care, is trading liberty for security? What liberty, the liberty to have money while other people don't? Why is that a good thing? The freedom to watch people die because they can't afford health insurance? Is that really liberty?

The right to private property for SOCIAL security is indeed trading a liberty for security. Your right to privacy is not the cause of people dying for lack of health insurance, and just because it can be sacrificed for the sake of the "greater" good doesnt make it right.

and yet..... Martial Law exists as an option
or the suspension of habeus corpus

So does an armed rebellion.

 

[Gardener]

How about a choice that says "I reject false dichotomies"?

Rather than viewing liberty and security as two entirely separate notions, I look for the confluences and potential interactions as expressed through each notion. A case in point: If terrorism became so commonplace that one could not go to a football game or theatre without fear of attack, then what sort of liberty is that? Terrorism restricts liberty by very nature, since it is a calculated tactic designed to create fear and therefore restricts people's ability to function normally.

Can we really have liberty WITHOUT security, and what kind of liberty might we have without enough of it? Complete anarchy would certainly deliver complete liberty from one point of view, but it fails completely from another since it fails to provide security. Security and liberty are inexorably related, and so rather than dealing with the terms as absolutes and as mutually exclusive, I'd rather think about the way one notion influences the other.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I believe most lefties are afraid of guns because it accentuates their own feelings of cowardice or their unwillingness to make personal safety and individual responsibility. You can google "A nation cowards" by Jeff Snyder for further edification on the issue

No need; I'll freely admit that I'm a coward. But I'd rather be a coward than a killer.

taking my income for a forced facade of a retirement program is taking my liberty because income comes from my time and when you take my income you take my time. You lefties confuse rights with entitlements. You have the right to any health care you can afford. when I have to pay for your health care its not a right, its an entitlement that infringes on MY RIGHTS

Very well, let's call it an entitlement. I feel that people should be entitled to a basic minimum life expectancy; I don't feel that people should be entitled to be selfish, to work only for their own enrichment. I feel that people should have the desire to take care of each other. I would be more than willing to allow people to give their own money to charities, to create their own social programs without the government taking a hand, except for one thing: it doesn't work. People don't give their money, because like you, they feel entitled to every penny they make, and in general have so little compassion for their fellow man that they would rather watch people starve, and watch people die of disease, than give up a creature comfort. You're right; I shouldn't refer to it as the right to health insurance, since we in the United States do not have that right. I'll simply refer to the basic human decency that would allow this society to take care of everyone in it, rather than being a society in which each individual only takes care of himself.

At any rate, once you have achieved a certain level of affluence, anything above and beyond that is not necessary to maintain your life and health and family, and so any money the government -- or anybody else -- asks for out of that surplus is not an infringement on your rights, IMO. It is an infringement on your entitlement, as you are entitled to be as wealthy as you can make yourself -- but I don't think you have the right to be stinking rich.


Sorry; I will not take this thread off topic any further. Turtledude, feel free to respond, but I won't rebut what you say. I think the topic here should be the poll's question, which is obviously in reference to the war on terror, and not to social programs.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

How about a choice that says "I reject false dichotomies"?

Rather than viewing liberty and security as two entirely separate notions, I look for the confluences and potential interactions as expressed through each notion. A case in point: If terrorism became so commonplace that one could not go to a football game or theatre without fear of attack, then what sort of liberty is that? Terrorism restricts liberty by very nature, since it is a calculated tactic designed to create fear and therefore restricts people's ability to function normally.

The only liberties we have are those we can defend. Security cannot be guaranteed, but when it comes to liberty you can live free or die. Free men would go out to said football games or theatres in defiance to those who would do harm.

Can we really have liberty WITHOUT security, and what kind of liberty might we have without enough of it? Complete anarchy would certainly deliver complete liberty from one point of view, but it fails completely from another since it fails to provide security. Security and liberty are inexorably related, and so rather than dealing with the terms as absolutes and as mutually exclusive, I'd rather think about the way one notion influences the other.

I thought you said it was a false dichotomy?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

No need; I'll freely admit that I'm a coward. But I'd rather be a coward than a killer.

Self defense can be dangerous :roll:

Very well, let's call it an entitlement. I feel that people should be entitled to a basic minimum life expectancy; I don't feel that people should be entitled to be selfish, to work only for their own enrichment.

So government should stop them?

I feel that people should have the desire to take care of each other. I would be more than willing to allow people to give their own money to charities, to create their own social programs without the government taking a hand, except for one thing: it doesn't work.

Allow people? As if what people did with their money was up to you that you "allow it." Whatever, you made my point in your last 3 words.

People don't give their money, because like you, they feel entitled to every penny they make, and in general have so little compassion for their fellow man that they would rather watch people starve, and watch people die of disease, than give up a creature comfort.

You're wrong and you're advocating socialism. No one would rather watch anyone starve or die, for the sake of their own self. We just dont want to be forced to be charitable by the government, thats false charity.

You're right; I shouldn't refer to it as the right to health insurance, since we in the United States do not have that right. I'll simply refer to the basic human decency that would allow this society to take care of everyone in it, rather than being a society in which each individual only takes care of himself.

Can we agree that everyone thinks that everyone should have health insurance, its just that we disagree on who should pay for it?

At any rate, once you have achieved a certain level of affluence, anything above and beyond that is not necessary to maintain your life and health and family

A certain level? Who draws this line? How do you deal with the negative consequences of those chosing to operate half assed because of no capacity to advance beyond said line? What about productivity? What about the economy?

and so any money the government -- or anybody else -- asks for out of that surplus is not an infringement on your rights, IMO. It is an infringement on your entitlement, as you are entitled to be as wealthy as you can make yourself -- but I don't think you have the right to be stinking rich.

Actually we do have that right, do you undertand private property?

 

[Gardener]

My name is being attributed to statements I did not make.

 

[TurtleDude]

afr0, I am wondering whether Turtle is a liar. He supposedly practices before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as an attorney, but when I asked him to provide legal reasoning, he asked me where I went to law school and made fun of me. I would think he would LOVE to discuss legal issues with me. Now he says he killed someone when being mugged? Me thinks he's a confabulator (someone who replaces fact with fiction) to say the least. :roll:

I think I have a stalker on my hands. NOt only are you a liar about what I have said, you are making posts about me, not what I said:roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

I am liberal who loves the constitution and I am gun collector now, and hunter in the past. I belong to a local gun club and I shoot targets with my hand guns all the time.

I am ready to protect the nation and the constitution against Terrorists from overseas, and terrorists from the Radical Right.

good for you. I am a conservative and I hate bible thumpers, gay bashers and those who blow up abortion clinics. I suspect unless you work at Planned Parenthood you have nothing to fear from "radical right" terrorists unless you call Al Qaeda radical right

 

[The Mark]

TurtleDude, dragonslayer.
If things get much more radical, on either end of the political spectrum, I think we will see both "radical right" terrorists and "radical left" terrorists.....actually, we probably have already had isolated incidents of both.