What is more important, National Security and profit or "Freedom"

[kirovman]

Economics are important, but it's also important to obtain a right balance of life.

I think the poll is too polarised imho, it's like being asked to choose between communism and facism, or a tub of 100C water or -40C water.

I choose freedom mearly on the principle that I disagree with the concept of Nationalism- that people feel blindly obligated to serve their country because they haven't seen the wider world. I choose freedom rather than that... not taking into account the economics of it. I would stand up for my nation if I felt it were morally justified. If I believed my nation to be criminal, I would disassociate myself with it.

 

[Foxtrot]

What's the point of the nation if you can't be free?

Whats the point of being free if you are dead?

 

[gh0st]

Whats the point of being free if you are dead?

I dont know about you but i'd rather be dead than live in most of the countries on this planet. When your life doesnt impact a damn thing why even continue living? Freedom > Life

Give me liberty or give me death. - Thomas Payne

 

[Foxtrot]

I dont know about you but i'd rather be dead than live in most of the countries on this planet. When your life doesnt impact a damn thing why even continue living? Freedom > Life

Give me liberty or give me death - Thomas Payne

I wouldn't mind living in a totalitarian society too much, I would certainly pick it over death. But if the difference is saving a couple lives against (random example) being able to use my own form of transportation, then I would chose freedom.

 

[kirovman]

I wouldn't mind living in a totalitarian society too much, I would certainly pick it over death. But if the difference is saving a couple lives against (random example) being able to use my own form of transportation, then I would chose freedom.

I'd probably go along with the totalitarian society to start with.

But if I felt too oppressed (which is very likely because I'm extremely irritable), I'd fight for my freedom.

 

[gh0st]

I wouldn't mind living in a totalitarian society too much, I would certainly pick it over death.

Totalitarian regimes dont exactly have to be bad, so you're right it depends upon the regime. Rome, for example, under Juilius Caesar, the Byzantine Empire under Justinian, etc, wouldnt be bad. I would not accept institutionalized opression.

But if the difference is saving a couple lives against (random example) being able to use my own form of transportation, then I would chose freedom.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Foxtrot]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I can't think of a real life example, as there really aren't any in the US that affect me.

 

[gh0st]

I can't think of a real life example, as there really aren't any in the US that affect me.

Lucky us. Plenty of other countries who dont have the freedoms we have. I know its cliche but its true, and having been to the third world both in the Americas and SE Asia, it makes you change in a heartbeat. Its just from that experience that I know freedom is more valuable than anything else. Maybe even secks.

 

[^Ben]

But not butt secks? Because that is the most important kind of secks.

Well, I think a balance between the 3(yes on the fence AGAIN) is the best way to-go

 

[pomegranate]

Foxtrot, was it you that was on about being able to drive off-roaders in the city a few weeks ago? Is that what freedom means to you?

 

[clarky003]

just to get things straight, i didnt say i personally think freedom , or our well being was second from economy, I think our well being and progression to better ourselves should come first over bureaucracey that surrounds our economy.

I was speaking from a realistic point of view , today it's quite obvious the running of countries isnt really based around the well being of people, it based around profit , and capitalisim which in turn creates some kind of sustainability of our well being as the bi product, but its not direct caring or responsibility, its desire of the few to gain wealth and physical possesions at the compensated expense of other peoples lives if nessesary ...

Its ultimately a world which is hypocritic to what we find true to ourselves, we try to create balance and equality, but our instinctual conterpart wants to feel his/her life is worth living, and is of greater importance somehow and so spawn's the survival mechanisim creating a superiority complex which in turn feeds our egotisim, our age old survival instinct, which actually is creating the problems we face today, we are creatures of two halves, mind and matter both important, but inbalanced, the conflict is not out there, its in here *taps head* . people need to wake upto that.

I happen to believe we are much more now and can be if we choose to, we have the ability to supress what creates hate and superiority complex's if we choose too, if the physcological battle can be won, and its more of a choice than evolution.. we can finally realise what we can and could accomplish as a people.

 

[Foxtrot]

Foxtrot, was it you that was on about being able to drive off-roaders in the city a few weeks ago? Is that what freedom means to you?

Link??

 

[Absinthe]

Whats the point of being free if you are dead?

Well, then I'd get to go out in glory, crying "FREEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM" as anarchists tear me apart. Many years later, a film will be made about me and the director will win an academy award.

 

[15357]

Nation > Citizen

 

[pomegranate]

Link??

Oh, if you don't remember then it definitely wasn't you. The person in question was quite adamant. Apologies.

 

[Sprafa]

Nation > Citizen

Stalin would agree with you. There is a chance for balance ya know...

 

[Foxtrot]

Oh, if you don't remember then it definitely wasn't you. The person in question was quite adamant. Apologies.

Its ok, I do say stupid things a lot :thumbs:

 

[15357]

Stalin would agree with you. There is a chance for balance ya know...

well at least Joe. S agrees with me.....

along with 35 of my fellow students (i asked them.)

(if they said nation, i told them they were great human beings, if they said freedom, i called them lefty commie Red basturds)

NATION > Citizen

 

[JellyWorld]

well at least Joe. S agrees with me.....

along with 35 of my fellow students (i asked them.)

(if they said nation, i told them they were great human beings, if they said freedom, i called them lefty commie Red basturds)

NATION > Citizen

Nation = Citizens. Your poll is badly phrased, a two option poll should be something like:

1. blabla
2. ~blabla

Are you saying Nation is the opposite of freedom? Nationalism is a euphemism for fanboyism.

 

[15357]

Nation = Citizens. Your poll is badly phrased, a two option poll should be something like:

1. blabla
2. ~blabla

Are you saying Nation is the opposite of freedom? Nationalism is a euphemism for fanboyism.

i didn't mean that.. i just asked if what was more important....

euphemism = ?

 

[JellyWorld]

i didn't mean that.. i just asked if what was more important....

euphemism = ?

euphemism;

The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive

 

[15357]

euphemism;

The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive

thank you.

 

[Absinthe]

15357, I'd appreciate it if you did more reasoning than mantra screaming.

 

[jverne]

to the people who say that we owe nothing to the goverment:

They educate us, protect us, shelter us from natural disastors, help us, ect.

We owe everything to the goverment.

Look, the government is not some ideal that give us all shelter and care! It's a private organisation, where we are the exploited and they are the exploiters (director->workers)! They educate us nothing (there are private schools you know)! They do not shelter us (in the tsunami event none of the natives were killed or hurt-because they can move freely anywhere they want, we on the contrary are restricted)! They do not help us (do you really think we would need social security if we could get our own land wherever we chose, grow or produce profitable merchendise-marihuana,...)! They don't protect us (if we were allowed to use drastic measures, would-be assailants would give a second thought before attacking us)!

There are many more reasons why anarchy could work, but the main problem here is that we are to lazy to care for ourselves!
I do agree to a certain extent that progress would be slower in anarchy...but if we would decend into anarchy nowdays there would still be people with ingenuety who would invent for themselves (for their benefit), but that again these people would therefore gain power and back comes the government! :dozey:

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I don't understand the question (from thread title)

"and profit" <- That goes into Freedom.

Also do you mean "freedom" in your definition as in no government, or as in present day western nations (America, Canada, most of Europe, etc)

And there's no reason why you can't have national security and freedom. You don't HAVE to take away rights and priveledges to be safe and keep persistent watch of specific loyal citizens, you beef up security.

 

[15357]

15357, I'd appreciate it if you did more reasoning than mantra screaming.

its the only thing i can do to support my point...........

 

[15357]

Look, the government is not some ideal that give us all shelter and care! It's a private organisation, where we are the exploited and they are the exploiters (director->workers)! They educate us nothing (there are private schools you know)! They do not shelter us (in the tsunami event none of the natives were killed or hurt-because they can move freely anywhere they want, we on the contrary are restricted)! They do not help us (do you really think we would need social security if we could get our own land wherever we chose, grow or produce profitable merchendise-marihuana,...)! They don't protect us (if we were allowed to use drastic measures, would-be assailants would give a second thought before attacking us)!

There are many more reasons why anarchy could work, but the main problem here is that we are to lazy to care for ourselves!
I do agree to a certain extent that progress would be slower in anarchy...but if we would decend into anarchy nowdays there would still be people with ingenuety who would invent for themselves (for their benefit), but that again these people would therefore gain power and back comes the government! :dozey:

the goverment does what is best for ALL, not just you.

 

[jverne]

the goverment does what is best for ALL, not just you.

oh yea? so what is the good thing that the USA spends 50% of the national income for millitary purposes?? With all that money there would be no unemployment!!!! If you were a bum on the street would you support the government?

What do you think the "police" is? It's basicly the governments personal "mass" control system! If your neigbour hates you and if he becomes a powerful politician, he will make such ruels that will ruin you! Why do you think the government doesn't give a shit about homless people? They don't have any money to give, therfore they are usles from a political point of view! Of course for the government to gain power it needs to please it's supporters (taxpayers)!
Do you think that Bush invaded Iraq to give the whole USA more cheap oil, NO, it goes directly in his pocket not yours! He is a buisness man runing a large buisness (USA)!

Anarchy is freedom, but also great responsibility!

BTW...if you were a powerful politican would you give benefits to your neigbour who hates you? Of course you wouldn't! Now picture such a scenario on a larger scale (country)!?

 

[Kebean PFC]

so what is the good thing that the USA spends 50% of the national income for millitary purposes?? With all that money there would be no unemployment!!!!

Are you crazy!! Money does not = job. Calm down and explain yourself. Yes it is a good thing, otherwise we would not be in the position we are today, and it is likely that we would either be Socialists or Communists by now which would = you dead becuase you complained about the govt.

Anarchy is freedom, but also great responsibility!

And we all know how responsible the majority of the people in this world are right

(in the tsunami event none of the natives were killed or hurt-because they can move freely anywhere they want, we on the contrary are restricted)!

Are you nuts?? The natives survived becuase they were farther inland. If you had a whit of common sense you would realize that people were not "held captive" by the govt. during the tsunami.

(do you really think we would need social security if we could get our own land wherever we chose, grow or produce profitable merchendise-marihuana,...)!

Yes so i could kill you and take your land... oh and rape your wife, and noone would be able to do anything about it. Wonderful system there.

They don't protect us

So the police and firefighters and paramedic do what? Oh i forgot, they are the SS, arsonists, and govt. stooges right? What is wrong with you? Do you realize that without all the crap that people do to protect your life you probably would be dead by now?

but the main problem here is that we are to lazy to care for ourselves!

Why work my land when i can just kill you are take you chickens or other food.


Do you realize what you would not have in anarchy. No electricity, no gas (natural or gasoline), no petrochemical products, actually no products of any kind. Do you know how many people would die (diabetics and such who need medication)? To get food, you would have to hunt and gather. To get water, you would have to fight, and waste ammuntion, which would there would be no production of either. I just don't think you understand what anarchy is and what it means. True anarchy will never occur becuase people are social animals, at the most we would descend back to the tribal level.

 

[The Monkey]

Are you crazy!! Money does not = job. Calm down and explain yourself. Yes it is a good thing, otherwise we would not be in the position we are today, and it is likely that we would either be Socialists or Communists by now which would = you dead becuase you complained about the govt.

If you knew anything about the subject of socialism you wouldn't be speaking that way.

And we all know how responsible the majority of the people in this world are right

Yes, most people have common sense, and they care about other people. How could a democracy work if you don't believe that the people make the right choice?

Yes so i could kill you and take your land... oh and rape your wife, and noone would be able to do anything about it. Wonderful system there.

You're right, anarchy is the worst government system I can think of.

So the police and firefighters and paramedic do what? Oh i forgot, they are the SS, arsonists, and govt. stooges right? What is wrong with you? Do you realize that without all the crap that people do to protect your life you probably would be dead by now?

But if you have all those things for free, why not have free med care too? It's the same princip.

Do you realize what you would not have in anarchy. No electricity, no gas (natural or gasoline), no petrochemical products, actually no products of any kind. Do you know how many people would die (diabetics and such who need medication)? To get food, you would have to hunt and gather. To get water, you would have to fight, and waste ammuntion, which would there would be no production of either. I just don't think you understand what anarchy is and what it means. True anarchy will never occur becuase people are social animals, at the most we would descend back to the tribal level.

That would be the effect, yes. But no anarchy would last very long. Sooner or later warlords would appear and take power. Then suddenly you so called freedom state would have turned into a corrupt dictatorship.

 

[15357]

But if you have all those things for free, why not have free med care too? It's the same princip.

1. Its the same thing as having electricity and gas for free and rationed. The nation's economy would collapse without more and more taxes which many people don't like.

What do you think the "police" is? It's basicly the governments personal "mass" control system! If your neigbour hates you and if he becomes a powerful politician, he will make such ruels that will ruin you! Why do you think the government doesn't give a shit about homless people? They don't have any money to give, therfore they are usles from a political point of view! Of course for the government to gain power it needs to please it's supporters (taxpayers)!
Do you think that Bush invaded Iraq to give the whole USA more cheap oil, NO, it goes directly in his pocket not yours! He is a buisness man runing a large buisness (USA)!

Anarchy is freedom, but also great responsibility!

1. Oh yeah! You're right! They just control us! They don't arrest theives and keep the law! (-not true)
Btw, where do you live? A country without police and politicians?

2. They do give a shit about homeles people. if they didn't, they would all be dead by now. Also, The Goverment can't support every single carbon-based life form in its jurisdiction.

3. President Bush invaded iraq because he thought there was something there that was threatening the world.



A nation is like an internet forum. The admins are the goverment, the mods are the police/military. It wouldn't work without them.

i'm starting to think that the majority of people here are liberals....

i guess i'd have a different response in a different forum (like PW)

 

[15357]

also,

oh yea? so what is the good thing that the USA spends 50% of the national income for millitary purposes?? With all that money there would be no unemployment!!!! If you were a bum on the street would you support the government?

Yes. the purpose of the military is to protect the nation, including you.

If i was a bum, i would go and get conscripted into the army.

 

[Absinthe]

i'm starting to think that the majority of people here are liberals....

...And? Is that somehow a bad thing? Actually, I've read through this topic and I've seen one convservative who has stressed a balance of the two (he did not favor the nation option) and another that pointed out that your poll was flawed. The benefit of the nation does not necessarily need to come with the expense of liberties.

But what exactly are you implying here? That conservatives think less of freedom? Hey, go ahead and argue that point then. I think you'll find many that disagree with you.

 

[15357]

...And? Is that somehow a bad thing? Actually, I've read through this topic and I've seen one convservative who has stressed a balance of the two (he did not favor the nation option) and another that pointed out that your poll was flawed. The benefit of the nation does not necessarily need to come with the expense of liberties.

But what exactly are you implying here? That conservatives think less of freedom? Hey, go ahead and argue that point then. I think you'll find many that disagree with you.

no, i was just saying that i have noticed it, i did NOT say that it was a bad thing.

 

[Absinthe]

But your implied assertion that conservatives think freedom is less important is an unsubstantiated one and is hampered even further by the false dilemma you present in this poll.

 

[jverne]

Are you crazy!! Money does not = job. Calm down and explain yourself. Yes it is a good thing, otherwise we would not be in the position we are today, and it is likely that we would either be Socialists or Communists by now which would = you dead becuase you complained about the govt.


And we all know how responsible the majority of the people in this world are right


Are you nuts?? The natives survived becuase they were farther inland. If you had a whit of common sense you would realize that people were not "held captive" by the govt. during the tsunami.

Yes so i could kill you and take your land... oh and rape your wife, and noone would be able to do anything about it. Wonderful system there.


So the police and firefighters and paramedic do what? Oh i forgot, they are the SS, arsonists, and govt. stooges right? What is wrong with you? Do you realize that without all the crap that people do to protect your life you probably would be dead by now?


Why work my land when i can just kill you are take you chickens or other food.


Do you realize what you would not have in anarchy. No electricity, no gas (natural or gasoline), no petrochemical products, actually no products of any kind. Do you know how many people would die (diabetics and such who need medication)? To get food, you would have to hunt and gather. To get water, you would have to fight, and waste ammuntion, which would there would be no production of either. I just don't think you understand what anarchy is and what it means. True anarchy will never occur becuase people are social animals, at the most we would descend back to the tribal level.

1. Actually...i was born under a socialist goverment and lived until under it until i was 5, well it's true i was to young to understand, but i've heard and studied ("major" in history) it + i live trough capitalism and therfore know both sides!

2. yes i see

3. Of course they weren't and the natives moved inland (i do agree that there was also a factor of stupidity in this event)

4. Yes, but there still remains the fact that you would first try to kill me (but you wouldn't succssed i assure you)

5. Hey that mostly happens in cities, we haven't had a fire here since a very long time ago and hope we never will! (i don't live in a city) I'm not saying that firefighters and medic are usless, but if there were less cars less people grouped together less disasters would happen and less people would die!
(btw, you know that during the industrialization the government almost forced people to move to a city?-->they needed more labour force)

6. The strongest and smartest will survive (if you manage to kill and my family you can take my land...IF!) I'm not a darwinist supporter, but there is the fact, that alot of people would die due to "un"adaptation to new circumstances (city folk!)

7. no government->no cars->no car deaths
no government->no McDonalds->no diabetes
no government->no pollution-> less deaths
......
i do agree that anarchy will never happen due to our social behaviour, that is why i support decentralized leadership (old greek style), that way there is more freedom (more anarchy)
P.S. true anarchy is like true communism or true democracy (only an ideal)

1. Its the same thing as having electricity and gas for free and rationed. The nation's economy would collapse without more and more taxes which many people don't like.



1. Oh yeah! You're right! They just control us! They don't arrest theives and keep the law! (-not true)
Btw, where do you live? A country without police and politicians?

2. They do give a shit about homeles people. if they didn't, they would all be dead by now. Also, The Goverment can't support every single carbon-based life form in its jurisdiction.

3. President Bush invaded iraq because he thought there was something there that was threatening the world.



A nation is like an internet forum. The admins are the goverment, the mods are the police/military. It wouldn't work without them.

i'm starting to think that the majority of people here are liberals....

i guess i'd have a different response in a different forum (like PW)

1. of course the do but they are also restraining you to defend yourself
(you get robbed and the robber rapes your GF is the police there to prevent this?) a gun is very useful, but only if you know how to use correctly (it's a tool just like your car or chainsaw, use it wisely and it will help you->btw i'm not a gun freak, i just treat weapons with respect, not like some idiots i know)!

2. Well they are dying, and how do they care for them?

3. :| thought http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/13/opinion/fenton/main660728.shtml
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1230305.htm
(warning, explicit images)
http://www.infowars.com/headline_photos/April/wounded_child.jpg
http://www.ananova.com/images/web/78525.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/224/1358/480/coffins.1.jpg

well he should have thought twice (if only the oil wouldn't be there)

also,



Yes. the purpose of the military is to protect the nation, including you.

If i was a bum, i would go and get conscripted into the army.

yes, yes the nation gives 50% of the income only to protect you, of course!
well actually they need to, all that hatred that the US caused twowards themselves in the world they need a strong millitary! :angel:

 

[The Monkey]

1. Its the same thing as having electricity and gas for free and rationed. The nation's economy would collapse without more and more taxes which many people don't like.

Bollocks, you've one of the lowest tax rates in the western world.

 

[15357]

Bollocks, you've one of the lowest tax rates in the western world.

i don't live in the west, i live in the far east....

now, i have realized that anything that you say will attract attacks.

so, i will not say anything, and read others' "reasoned" debate.

please, debate.

 

[Pesmerga]

Freedom.

Nations rise and fall, freedom is eternal.

 

[Kebean PFC]

no government->no cars->no car deaths
no government->no McDonalds->no diabetes
no government->no pollution-> less deaths

Not at all buddy. Diabetics would die off, so there would be none left, cuz the ones that are getting born would die. No pollution becuase there is nothing being made. If you are a history major then you should know roughly what living during the Greek times was like. Would you like to live that way? In fear of your life and property?