Would you rather have no rights and be protected or...

It seems there is an ongoing debate regarding protection vs. rights. If you were able to choose between two extremes what would you choose.

A Country where there is no law. Therefore there is no impediment to your rights and no accountability by the Government for your actions. This also of course applies to your fellow citizens. There is no protection offered by the Government against crime or terrorism.

or

A Country where all rights are assigned by the Government and may be removed at any point for any reason. However in this said Country there is no crime and no terrorism.

i am for a smaller government being governed by the ppl. i am for the protection of individual rights and taking more personal responsibility rather than expecting our gov't to tell me what is and isn't right for me.

if i had to pick btw the extreme of the first and the second (which is not so far off from our door), i'd go w/ the first. i find a gov't that has too much power to be more of a threat to me than terrorists.


edited to add: GREAT QUESTION. i am curious to see other answers.. if ppl can tear themselves away from the "obama isn't wearing his flag pin" and "mccain is satan's half brother's uncle's cousin's stepchild" posts.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by justamomma]

I would agree with you. I also am very curious to see what others opinions are. Thanks for the reply!

Without hesitation, I'll take freedom over safety any day of the week. Currently in our country, the thing we need protection from the most is our own government.

Ben Franklin said it best.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I've always found this question asking you to be choosing one of two ends of a slippery slope.

My answer is "neither". I prefer a balance of the two.

reply to post by sos37

---

Fair enough. Where is the balance? Are there rights you are willing to sacrafice in the name of protection. If so which ones? Thanks for the reply

It's tough to say where to draw the line because it asks to make a blanket statement to cover all scenarios. I prefer to take them on a case by case basis. But I think both entities, individuals and governments, have to be willing to give a little, to make sacrifice for the greater good of the combined whole.

As an example though, let's say the police wanted to search my car for drug paraphanalia during a routine traffic stop. If I asked them how come they want to search, I would expect them to give me a good answer, like I was exhibiting odd behavior, there was an odd smell (not uncommon in my car due to all the trash I have in there) or something else reasonable. And of course I would let them search because I know I have nothing to hide.

But if I get the impression they want to search the vehicle because I'm a black man, then I should have the right to refuse and tell them why, and be let go at that point.

reply to post by sos37

---

but were you living under the system you were originally intended to live under according to the founding fathers, you would have never been stopped and checked for drugs in the first place.

the government isn't meant to protect the people from you silly.


[edit on 2-7-2008 by justamomma]

reply to post by sos37

---

So what you are saying is you may be willing to give up a bit of your right to privacy to help law enforcement identify individuals who use controlled substances. I can understand that point.

Interesting question, but I think you're begging the question a little bit. For me, rights ARE protection. If I have no rights, how could anyone or any organization protect me? I would be completely without recourse. I would never willfullly be a part of anything that even smelled like that.

reply to post by argentus

---

I am not familiar with that term. Could you explain what you mean. I aree with the rest of your post. thanks for the reply.

reply to post by harvib

---

Your hypothetical does not really work because the main purpose of laws should be to restrain the government, no the people.
But, supposing your situation could happen, I would choose freedom.
I think the people living in the American Colonies understood what freedom was and they were all for it.

I believe the great Patrick Henry said it best:


"Give me liberty or give me death"






That pretty much sums it up for me

not these days huh? Governments seem to be pretty unrestrained. But thank you for the reply.

An interesting debate topic, however all such scenarios are totally hypothetical.

Human Rights can neither be given, nor taken away.

They can not be not be removed, suspended, abridged, given up, set aside or diluted in any way.

Human Rights are INALIENABLE

They can either be defended, or, they can be violated. Period

reply to post by thepresidentsbrain

---

Point taken. However what if one voluntarily gives up what was previously determined to be a right in the interest of a greater good.

For example a previous poster mentioned giving up the right to privacy to help law enforcement identify drug users.

Also how do we identify what human rights really are?


[edit on 2-7-2008 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib

---

I'll go against the flow and pick the second choice. The first one would be anarchy and those are terrifying. The helpless like children, the disabled, the elderly, and, in some cases, women would have no recourse or protection. Both sound like nightmares but you mentioned the second choice has no crime or terrorism so that is better than being raped, murdered, beaten, molested, etc., without any form of judgment against the offenders. In the first choice if you were still alive you could go after the offenders yourself like a vigilante but that sounds like a society of violence begetting violence. No thanks! Choice 2 sounds like the lesser of two evils.

reply to post by AshleyD

---

Now what if the Government deemed it necessary to assign a curfew and install cameras in everyone’s home in order to continue to guarantee protection. Would this still be your preferred choice. Just playing devils advocate.

reply to post by AshleyD

---

"Where love rules, there is no will to power; and where power predominates, the love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other."

i personally would rather trust my neighbor than trust those in government.

what ppl fail to see is that when you trust someone, they are more likely to be trusted. the government makes ppl feel less and less trusted each day.... and therefore ppl are becoming less trustworthy. what those before us set up in this country was meant to prevent THIS from happening....... we, the country as a whole, have failed to see their wisdom.

reply to post by harvib

---

Honestly? As unpopular of an answer as this will be for this site, those things truly would not bother me. I am so boring so there really isn't anything to catch me doing 'wrong' and I am rarely out late anyways (being married with children). I don't even have a single traffic ticket on my record so they can video tape away- it's their footage to waste. However, if you told me they would ban the Christian faith, then I might have a problem. Seriously, though. No, I do not have a problem with it but I can understand the plight of those who would.

But this is a very good thread. In my defense, I was also the victim of a very violent crime ten years ago and if it were not for the police, I don't know where I would be today. I'm also a very petite female so not really the 'I can handle myself' type of person. I would get killed within five minutes in society A.

Good thread. I know my answer isn't popular but there would have been no reason to say what everyone else was saying just to fit in.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by AshleyD]