It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Which will you choose? Freedom or Security??

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:39 PM
There is no freedom without security, so it's a loaded question.

In the U.S. we pretty much have both, of course there's trade offs at the margin.

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:42 PM

Originally posted by cargo
ok then, replace child with you...

I thought I did in my second paragraph. Why would I need to give up security for freedom or freedom for security? Perhaps too much is being read into the Patriot Act which is fueling this discussion. I don't really see what freedoms of mine personally have been taking away so far. I can speak freely, go where I want etc. We have lived with both freedom and security for sometime now.

When you refer to security I think you are talking about invasion of privacy by federal agencies. I don't see that as a security issue but rather a privacy one and I don't see what freedom is being taken. Perhaps my privacy is being violated but how does that translate into loss of freedom?

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:49 PM
people may still be too ignorant to have either.

throughout all recorded history (nearly 7,000 years worth) and not one week without war, killing, and distruction in some fashion.

the human race has yet to experience freedom or security, because thier actions and behaviors prove they really don't comprehend either.

"the best defense is a good offense"


the best defense is not having anything to defend!

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 11:55 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with your points but that would be like living in Eden and well, thats over. Preventing a fire would seem on paper less costly than responding to one. But that has not quite worked out that way this time. Defending our country, family and freedoms is a daily part of life.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 12:12 AM
If freedom is worth nothing without security, then the US occupation of Iraq hasn't done much of value.

We are told in America that we must give up some freedoms- such as the right to be free from secret searches and seizures or secret detentions- in the name of security. But the rhetoric shifts when people talk about Iraq, then it seems freedom is supposed to trump the security of the people.

Which would I choose? Well, the truth is one is valueless without the other. Ideally, I'd like to live in a society which errs in favor of freedom. When freedom is taken away beyond a certain level, it becomes impossible to tell anymore whether or not the government is properly weighing the freedom vs. security calculus, or is abusing its power.

As someone said, liberty dies without sunshine.

-koji K.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Memorialday1999
I don't necessarily disagree with your points but that would be like living in Eden and well, thats over. Preventing a fire would seem on paper less costly than responding to one. But that has not quite worked out that way this time. Defending our country, family and freedoms is a daily part of life.

did they come here to kill themselves in the process of taking the "World Trade Center (TM)" to the ground because they had no reason?

i find it hard to believe so many people wish us harm for no good reason. we have threatened them in some way.
we have secrets we guard.
we have strongly affected the political environments of thier nations more so than the leaders of thier nations.

on the offense for over 7,000 years is what brought down the towers, not lack of freedom or security.

acting out first in invasive and subversive manners in thier hometowns is what brought those souls here (knowing they would die) to cause so much havoc.

cause and effect.

everone thinks the cause was the towers falling.

maybe that was the effect.

if hate and fear could have won over hate and fear, i'm sure it would have happened by now.

i mean we've been stuck in this rut that hate and fear can destroy hate and fear for over 7,000 years (documented proof) and it seems our track record speaks for itself.

but, maybe offense is the key. ya, lets try it for another 7,000 years.

i say re-invent the wheel. our first attempt seems to be ..... flawed.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:43 AM
I think "rights" is the issue, not freedom. You are free to do whatever you want. If you want to steal a car you can. But there is a price to pay for your actions. But you don't have the right to steal a car. That is the difference between an upstanding, responsible member of society and a criminal. With that in mind I don't see how having the government tap someones phone is stopping that person from doing whatever they want, but it is violating their right to privacy.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:01 AM
Yes it is about RIGHTS and this equals FREEDOM. Your can't have freedom without rights.

Bulldog 52, I believe Tony Blair and his 'robbers' have started to eliminate your freedoms and rights but he is very underhanded in how he does this.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:52 AM
I would like both freedom and security. Both can be achieved through economic, political and social fairness, through education.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:24 AM

Originally posted by LDragonFire

Which will you choose? Freedom or Security??

I don't want anymore rights taken away I choose Freedom over security,

If the FBI and CIA did there job 9/11 would not have happen.

down with the patiot act!

i take it to mean that the present status-quo of Freedom~Security is going to be changed....and which 'right' are U & I willing to negotiate...

in that case, i choose a greater emphasis on security.
because, lifestyle adjustments i can make, such as not having 24hr pizza delivery available or only having public buses running 14hrs a day instead of 24hrs...junk like that we seem to have equated with 'Freedom'

or that porn and racism in books & art is considered 'Freedom' and should be available in any public library & accessed on any internet device...
i think we should define 'freedom' more precisely.

after-all, in the privacy of my internal mind, i have pretty much unlimited
'freedom', and may imagine all levels of good or ill...
it's when/ if i decide to act upon these ideas/ideals in the larger social community, that my imagined 'freedoms' are constrained or modified.
~or something like that~


Your last thought: [If the FBI & CIA did their job, 9-11 wouldn't have happened]

too much freedom(as in un-regulated liberty & anarchic, hedonistic, freedom)
& living life like a disney-land adventure,
is what helped the 9-11 to be able to happen.

with properly attuned security measures by FBI-CIA-et al...
AND proper Oversight
....then a proper & effective 'security' compromise can be achieved
which still protects our lives, liberty & pursuit of happiness
while being vigilent and diligent with all 'friends +/~ foes'

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:29 AM
Thank you all for posting, I would have joined the debate sooner, but work happens..

I think back to 911, watching the events unfold, my wife was freaking out and was talking about going to school to pick up our kids. I reasoned with her that I seriously doubt that there was a terrorist cell hijacking a plane to crash into our kids school, when there were and is Soooo many other high value targets. She calmed down somewhat, while we were all as Im sure you where too, still glued to the TV. I remember Tom Brokaw freaking out at Why the president had not addressed the people in such a crisis, while he was on a plane "Running" around the country, Why Did the president show so much fear, why didn't he return to Washington or New York with a full fighter escort?? Why did he cower?

And now here we are today, a Fear society. Why did the president for the next two and a half years give speeches all throughout the country with these words...WAR...Terror....Weapons of Mass Destruction..Threats against US...Terrorist are tryin to git us ......WAR...WAR...Terror.....WAR.....Fear

Its sad that he scared the USA IMO more than 911

I would have expected more from the president, like Closing the borders, RESTRICTING who gits into the USA, rather than opening the borders so the mexicans can can take the resturant/hositality/foodservice Agraculture/landscaping, grocery/driving, Then send something like 15 billions dollars a year back to mexico, just what would thaT 15 billion a year do to our economy, if these jobs where held by Amercians?

The vote of 2005 just shows [I do think they cheated to win] how much of the population lives in fear partly because of the political leaders has told them they should....most of these people "steriotyping" place the believe around fear...there religious beliefs are based on the fear of going to hell, and there polictical beliefs are based on fear of being attacked.

Security: or the power for the people in uniform is the status quo now

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 11:47 AM

Security is only a concept.

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 12:05 PM
Good question... maybe freedom, Cos it wouldn't be nice to live in a police state... And yeah CIA/FBIA did a bad job, But the Englich men did well...

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:57 PM
Freedom without a doubt!

I feel safe walking down the streets, and to be honset you are damn more likely to be run over by a bus than killed in a 'terrorist' attack. I'm not scared, bring on freedom!

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:37 AM

Originally posted by ekul08
Freedom without a doubt!

I feel safe walking down the streets, and to be honset you are damn more likely to be run over by a bus than killed in a 'terrorist' attack. I'm not scared, bring on freedom!

Same Here!!!!!!!!

People Don't look at Terrorism Logicly - they react emotionally.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:27 AM
Dragon Fire,

Freedom unlike security comes with a price. At least that's what I learned after watching Braveheart.

I think the question should be, How much are you willing to pay for freedom ?

Just a thought.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by joyouslyhumored]

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:08 AM
i shall quote a man whom had a better concept on both...

"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
Benjamin Franklin

now, it's our countries duty to make us feel secure without any personal intrusion. if we are hunting "terrorists", why in the world do you care what i do personally? you have great intelligence on terrorist yet you want to be able to look into every American's personal file and conduct unconstitutional practices on them because you suspect them of being terrorists. bull#. when was the first time you heard of a terrorist who was caught thanks to the patriot act? because i sure haven't. it's just smokes and mirrors to slowly condition us for far less liberties and have us under control over fear of the boogie man. people need to wake the f*** up before they get the carpet pull up from under them.

/end vent

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:18 PM
Freedom obviously.

My odds of getting killed by a terrorist are pretty astronomical. All of that money spent on the war on terror could have REALLY helped a lot of people.

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:15 PM
People. Before your very eyes a plan is being put into motion. "The Work Of Ages". It's centuries old.

Check out these movies and post your responses once more to the question:
If you HAD to choose, would you choose freedom or Security...

If you watch the movies in this order, you will be getting information upon information upon information, meaning the first will document what the next will build ontop off.

I seriously think we are all in trouble, and I do mean ALL.....
The only way to beat it is by spreading the information. Terror on the other hand, only makes them even more powerfull, untill we learn to see through the illusion.

Take care my friends.



[edit on 3-8-2005 by Cade]

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Cade]

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Cade]

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:36 PM
Security... well boys and girls if we were doing "good deeds" in the world instead of placing dictators so we can squeeze every drop of a countries resources, or paving the way for corporations to do what they want where they want, we would not need security. No reason for others to hate you when you are good. Dont even give me some crud that they "hate our freedom" reasoning.

We dont need this huge military except for offence. It is NOT for defence. This country cannot be taken. The logistics to try and invade America is nightmarish. It doesnt take a very big Navy to defend us even, and ours is the biggest. What we need is the Navy like it is, and Nuclear weapons. For defence all else is not needed. We even have nearly 100 million armed Americans. No army is even a quarter of that size, let alone the impossibe job of getting an invasion force accross the oceans without it getting blown out of the water.

Our military is not for defending the country. It is a military for offence, just like Adolf Hitlers. It is called Blitzkrieg, English translation: Lightning war, using Army Airforce and Navy for easy strategic advancement. We are being duped, as always.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in