[WMCoolmon]

One of those fun philosophical discussions.

A great thinker once said, "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither." I think it may have been Thomas Jefferson, but it may have also been Benjamin Franklin. I'm actually not sure.

Regardless of whose to blame, at first glance the quote would seem to imply that freedom and security are exclusive.

But in some ways they aren't. Take, for example, the right to privacy.. It's commonly regarded as a 'freedom', to be free from unauthorized searches. But in a sense, you're providing security for your information.

Or freedom of speech. Without some kind of security, someone could just off you and suddenly your freedom is gone.

So, are 'freedom' and 'security' opposite ideas, or is it possible for freedom to coexist with security?

Or is this all just rambling from a sleep-deprived mind?

[TrashMan]

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

I don't know who said that, but he obviously wasn't a great thinker...

[redmenace]

That is if you inteprett that quote to mean freedom as in civil liberties. There are many that think that he was refering to economic freedom and economic security.

[Nuke]

lifed no fun unless theres a chance you can die.

[IPAndrews]

Freedom and security though seemingly in opposition will always coexist because nobody is ever completely free, completely oppressed, completely secure, or completely insecure.

[Mefustae]

But then, take a look at the western world at the moment (namely the US). Time after time, the 'Freedom' is given up to better 'Security'. The abject destruction of most Freedoms is being done so damn slowly that either nobody really notices or takes heed, or it is noticed and they just think 'well, if we have to give up a little freedom for the sake of security, so be it'. Sooner or later, we're going to wake up and realise we have sign a register every time we take a piss...

...While Freedom and Security don't have to oppose each other - in fact, many Freedoms do indeed entitle one to a certain degree of Security, and Vice Versa - right now, 'Freedom' is systematically being destroyed in most Western Countries - predominantly in the US - in the name of better 'Security' for the plebes...which I think to be a complete waste of time...

...well, to sum up what I think, I believe the time has come for another Communist Revolution, with me at its Head of course :devil: ...

[Martinus]

Originally posted by TrashMan
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

I don't know who said that, but he obviously wasn't a great thinker...

[color=66ff00]America proves otherwise.
[/color]

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

I don't know who said that, but he obviously wasn't a great thinker...

Trashman puts his foot in it yet again

Whether you agree with the point or not saying that Benjamin Franklin wasn't a great thinker is only going to make you look foolish.


BTW a more correct version of the quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Source


Notice the qualifiers. Freedom in return for safety is allowed. In other words I give up my freedom to murder people to gain some security from having people murder me.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by IPAndrews
Freedom and security though seemingly in opposition will always coexist because nobody is ever completely free, completely oppressed, completely secure, or completely insecure.

Truerer... er... (where does that dang word stop??) words...

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by TrashMan
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

I don't know who said that, but he obviously wasn't a great thinker...

That is definitely a throbbing faux pas for anyone who wants to claim patriotism, and a damn good laugh to anyone who doesn't.

[vyper]

Freedom is more important that security provided by others, since the moment you place anything above your freedom all your other rights are also devalued.

Or... something. Look what do you want from me? I've been working today.

[Descenterace]

Freedom and Security are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 'Freedom from' and 'freedom to' are, however.

We give up the freedom to kill anyone we don't like for the assurance that we won't be ourselves murdered. We give up the freedom to enter anyone's home at any time for the assurance that no one will break in to our homes. It's a social bargain. It's also a damned good argument in favour of using lethal force to defend one's person and house, ie. if someone breaks into my house they've voided at least part of the bargain, and can therefore be considered to be wearing a target.

[Flipside]

Hmmm.. Well, the opposite of Freedom is Incarceration (more or less) not security. In some cases you must deny the freedom of one for the greater security of many. But when you deny the Freedom of many for the sake of security for many, then you have to look very carefully at what is going on, because to start playing with Freedom ion a country where they have been taught the Freedom is a hard-earned liberty that is worth dying for, you start treading on some very dangerous ground.
That's particularly the case when those trades of Freedom for Security are really a cop-out, a defence against the symptoms, not the disease.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by karajorma


Trashman puts his foot in it yet again

Whether you agree with the point or not saying that Benjamin Franklin wasn't a great thinker is only going to make you look foolish.


BTW a more correct version of the quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Source


Notice the qualifiers. Freedom in return for safety is allowed. In other words I give up my freedom to murder people to gain some security from having people murder me.

So what? Even great people say rap from time to time.
And if his sentance means what people think it means, than THIS statement of his is stupid.

and since you're never truly free I don't give much into all those freedoms anyway.
Id cards? Cammeras? Security checks? GPS trackers?

Petty stuff nad fine by me.
Most of you have no idea what it truly means to loose ones freedom....

[Roanoke]

All I know is little orange signs have appeared on the walls at work and they insist on keeping the blinds closed. I mean, damn it, I need my vitamin D!

[Deepblue]

???

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
So what? Even great people say rap from time to time.
And if his sentance means what people think it means, than THIS statement of his is stupid.

If you believe that fine. But you were saying that he wasn't a great thinker which is obviously patent nonsense.

Originally posted by TrashMan
Most of you have no idea what it truly means to loose ones freedom....

Most of us are smart enough to want it to stay that way.

[TrashMan]

I susected it was Benjamin Frakling.. .Weather he was a great thinker or not, he surely wasn't thinking when he said that..or maby he was drunk...meh...

Most of us are smart enough to want it to stay that way.

Are you implying something?

[Ace]

Translation: Franklin is a great thinker until his opinions contradict those held by shrubs.

Corrective Measures: Terminate the meatbags!

[TrashMan]

If he can so quickly juge people and deny them the right to freedom based on their perception on what's necessary for security, then yes....

Then agin it depends on the meaning of his sentance..