Liberty vs Security (1 Viewer)

[TurtleDude]

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.

perhaps. right now most domestic terrorism comes from the environmentalist and animal rights whackos.

 

[The Mark]

Perhaps. Right now most domestic terrorism comes from the environmentalist and animal rights whackos.

A valid point, as far as I can tell.

 

[Voidwar]

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.

You are in the wrong.
The men should have both been killed by this good citizen.
By threatening his wallet, which holds the money he barters for his children's food they are threatening his life.

Your attempt to "guilt trip" this good citizen is shockingly ugly.

I congratulate him, and wish he had shot and killed the accomplice too.

 

[Mr.Clover]

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.

I never new that, then again I never bothered to read all the thousands of laws passed by local governments like a normal citizen.

The U.S. is the only country in the world where you can mind your own business without having your buisness being minded by others, or something.......

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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.

So the declaration of independence reads "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of yay-oh."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I have no clue what your point is here.

Social security robs me of my natural right of property without due process.

 

[The Mark]

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.

All states have ridiculously assbackwards laws.

Of course, we may disagree on the definition of "assbackwardsness".

 

[Synch]

I think they are equally important and not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Which is why I'm keep my gun.

All 10 of them.

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't know what good your rights are if you are killed in a terrorist attack........

As for me I don't have a problem with being a little inconvenienced at the airport or the NSA people monitoring calls from terrorists into this country if it keeps us safe from another terrorist attack........

As someone else already said I have not lost any rights......

 

[DeeJayH]

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.

what do you call being choked?
are you only able to defend yourself, after you are unconcious, and the perpetrator continues choking you?
do you see how absurd that is?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The greatest civil right is the right to life. It is the right upon which all other rights are based upon, the F.F.'s thought so highly of that ideal that it was placed first and foremost of the rights listed in the D.O.I.. They went on to add that:

To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

So not only do the people have the right to life but it is the governments sworn duty to protect that right and if they do not we the people have the right to abolish that government.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

The greatest civil right is the right to life. It is the right upon which all other rights are based upon, the F.F.'s thought so highly of that ideal that it was placed first and foremost of the rights listed in the D.O.I.. They went on to add that:



So not only do the people have the right to life but it is the governments sworn duty to protect that right and if they do not we the people have the right to abolish that government.

So that means that the government has the duty to preserve the right to life of its citizens, correct? Over the right to private property, since that right is secondary to the right to life?

So that means the government has a duty to help preserve life through food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc. Not so?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So that means that the government has the duty to preserve the right to life of its citizens, correct?

Nice straw man they did not say "preserve" the right to life they said "secure" it.

Secure - well guarded and strongly fortified or protected
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Preserve - maintain something to: keep up or maintain something
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

See the difference?

Over the right to private property, since that right is secondary to the right to life?

How can one retain property without life?

So that means the government has a duty to help preserve life through food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc. Not so?

Pure sophistry.

The D.O.I. does not say it is the governments duty to provide you with free food or free money, it says it is their job to secure the right to life and that if they do not we may abolish that government and replace it with one which will provide for our safety.

I suppose your argument would hold water if you didn't change the words used to suit it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by The Mark:
All states have ridiculously assbackwards laws.

Of course, we may disagree on the definition of "assbackwardsness".

Yeah, I know. I drove through Michigan a long time ago and the people were pretty cool. The breeze off the lake was a lot colder!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Social security robs me of my natural right of property without due process.

You're pro-GITMO! Don't even talk to me about "due process".

 

[TurtleDude]

I think they are equally important and not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Which is why I'm keep my gun.

All 10 of them.

Only ten:mrgreen: well everyone has to START someplace:smile:

 

[TurtleDude]

You're pro-GITMO! Don't even talk to me about "due process".

strawman alert
diversion noted:mrgreen:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by turtledude:
strawman alert
diversion noted

Anyone who is pro-GITMO is not for due process!

End of discussion!

 

[Nexus]

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.

I agree completely. Without liberty, you'll never have security and without security, there is no liberty.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're pro-GITMO! Don't even talk to me about "due process".

yet he is a citizen and they are not. I see nothing inconsistent with applying constitutional rights to CITIZENS and not to foreign enemies

 

[afr0byte]

You are in the wrong.
The men should have both been killed by this good citizen.
By threatening his wallet, which holds the money he barters for his children's food they are threatening his life.

Your attempt to "guilt trip" this good citizen is shockingly ugly.

I congratulate him, and wish he had shot and killed the accomplice too.

Pffft, oh please, he could have called and canceled his cards/etc. Yeah, I suppose stealing some money should be punishable by death.:roll: I mean, we kill muggers all the time in our justice system.

 

[afr0byte]

Interesting point of view.

I find myself unable to agree with it.

Yours is interesting as well. You think money is more important than a person's life?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Anyone who is pro-GITMO is not for due process!

End of discussion!

I'm all for due process but not for non-citizen unlawful combatants captured while supporting or contributing to terrorist activities against the United States.

 

[afr0byte]

what do you call being choked?
are you only able to defend yourself, after you are unconcious, and the perpetrator continues choking you?
do you see how absurd that is?

My mistake, I missed the choking portion of his post. However, it still seems absurd to me for him to kill a guy if all they wanted was his wallet.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You're pro-GITMO! Don't even talk to me about "due process".

How many U.S. citizens are being held in Gitmo?