Peace or Freedom?

I've always been a staunch supporter of freedom for as long as i can remember even if that means sacraficing peace or even security. I read a lot of threads on ATS and there is a very diverse populace here and i want to hear from you.

Would you rather have absolute peace (peace refering to no war and little crime, but have few to no personal freedoms) or would you rather have freedom at the cost of a loss in security and fighting wars here and there? Let me know what you think and why you feel that way.

I'll leave you with a quote that pretty much sums up how i feel.

“You and i know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.” - Ronald Reagan.

Its a tough call...

Peace - everyones security is gauranteed.
Freedom - everyone can do what they want.

The utilitatarian answer is peace, but it seems intuitive to want freedom.

I'm gonna say peace because it would mean the world is a better place. Freedom is an illusion, an integral part of the capitalist agenda to control. Is anyone really free, even if they think they are, I dont think so. I think the weight of duty is far greater on us today than ever before, rendering freedom a sacrifice easily made.

I'll go with freedom every time.

If that means having an occasional war and crime, so be it,
it's not human nature to be totally peaceful all the time
anyways.

I absolutley agree with you, the price of freedom can be high but it's always worth it. I don't understand why but is seems to me that more and more people could care less about freedom these days. Of course there are those of us that would do anything for freedom still around but i wonder how many decades it will take before we are rare.

First of all the quote you attribute to Red Ronnie is a paraphrase of Patrick Henry.

"Is life do dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry

Peace and security can never be absolute. We are all subject to random violence and accidental harm, no matter how strict the police state. Despite the promises of would be tryants, the government is simply incapable of protecting us in our daily lives. Our only real protection is of ourselves, which is the best argument for the second amendment. I often hear people illustrate this point by saying that, "Well, if you were in a padded cell, you'd be safe, but who want's that"? This is simply incorrect. If you're in a padded cell, then you're completely subject to the whims of the jailkeeper, who's gentle ministrations I promise you would find wanting. The bottom line is that the government is not there to protect you, but to profit from you, and you are always better off looking after your own interests.

Freedom is similarly never total. As close as one came come is to be the proverbial man in the wilderness. Even then you are told what to do by the absolute requirements of survival. Try getting a Miranda warning from a grizzly bear. Most will always choose the tyranny of the majority over the despotism of the desert. Unfortunantly for us loner types, the wilderness is no longer any protection from human avarice. The best we can do is to keep the government as small and powerless as possible, and regularly water the tree of liberty with the blood of tryants.

Thanks for the history lesson, i had just watched the peticular speech reagan gave when he used that quote, he didn't attribute it and when i searched it Reagans name kept coming up.

Of course when i refer to freedom, i don't intend to live secluded myself. It just seems to me though that Americans are forgetting where they come from and the Ideals of their forefathers.

Didn't mean to seem too didactic.

I couldn't agree more with your last thought there.

Love your sig, BTW.