Neither security nor liberty is incompatible with each other and we need to save both of them!!

I've been thinking about this issue for a while. I wouldn't say that it's a non-issue but given the way that debates are framed in politics the debate is turning into a false dichotomy. How is it false? Let's see.

This whole debate is framed upon two opposite extremes of the issue. Benjamin Franklin once said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."(en.wikiquote.org...).

The Patriot Act was just as bad as it was in 2004 (www.rutherford.org...) as it still is today. Those that seek to protect our country from its enemies claim to do it and they then say that it's okay to dismantle our civil liberties in the process. This should not be tolerated. America should be a .

The way that our government operates is based on complete This paranoia of American citizens needs to end. Not everyone in America will become a terrorist, however, our government thinks that ANYONE can be a terrorist. This may be true, but, the majority of Americans are NOT terrorists, and therefore they need to stop acting in ways that turn normal law abiding citizens INTO terrorists. Again, these defenders of authoritarianism are defending the government's version of security (which is oppression). Security IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH OPPRESSION. Just because the government takes measures of oppression to "protect us" doesn't mean that it makes us any more safe. Just look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Middle-East. Do they make us more safe or secure? Are they better for the national security of our nation?

The problem isn't necessarily that wanting safety is bad, it's how people go about wanting safety. You see, the word security has been co-opted by a bunch of people that support government agencies like the NSA spying on normal American citizens and the TSA which proceeds to touch people in inappropriate ways. Things were fine before when we just had metal detectors. Body-scanners could probably be less obtrusive if they wanted them to be, but, they want to make you stand up with your arms out when you use them.

My point is: it's time to reclaim security and liberty from those that wish to destroy what this country once was. I believe that our nation was founded by most people who believed in principles of freedom (minus Alexander Hamilton).Not authoritarianism. The bill of rights is supposed to protect our freedom. What is at stake here is NOT just our own freedom! But also the very definition of safety and security itself.

Homeland security can no longer be looked at as just security for the United States of America, but, for its empire abroad, and in order for it to be true homeland security, we must also bring an end to this empire in order for things to become more normal.

I just thought I'd share that: this is the piece that we've been missing this whole time with the whole liberty vs security debate-- we're not just at risk for losing our liberty, but it's something Ron Paul has talked about, but we're in danger of losing what makes us safe and secure as well. We always used to be secure because we were an Island nation and people couldn't harm us. Now we're stretched out all over the world and people can harm us or our allies almost everywhere we have troops. It needs to end.

The big issue is freedom vs. equality.

There is a trade off that must be made, for they are wholly incompatible with each other. Like a dressing, you have to shake them up to make them mix well enough to be compatible

Otherwise what you end up with, invariably, is that the Federal Government will begin showing a preference for one militia over another, or create its own standing army. THis was the fear of the Antifederalists, and they were obviously dead on.

Once you get this official Federal military, you then slide into the secrecy that is found within the Military Industrial Complex

The only security we need is the basic security of our borders. From there, each person should have the personal responsibility of providing their own safety. And have civil recourse should they find themselves a victim.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
There is a trade off that must be made, for they are wholly incompatible with each other. Like a dressing, you have to shake them up to make them mix well enough to be compatible

Otherwise what you end up with, invariably, is that the Federal Government will begin showing a preference for one militia over another, or create its own standing army. THis was the fear of the Antifederalists, and they were obviously dead on.

I fail to see how security would invariably lead to the demise of our freedoms. You see, this is the false dichotomy that keeps this whole debate going. One side thinks that we have to give up our security in order to protect ourselves while the other side thinks that we have to have our freedom and we can't have anything else but at absolute cost. The problem is when the government does things there is an inherent flaw in the system. Why? It's because the government is absolutely secretive about everything that it does. It does not tell us what its intentions are and it's more likely to use these things for bad than for good.

If the government was truly representative of the people-- it would not declare all these needless wars. But the government subscribes to the philosophy of the elite where it thinks that it is above the people, and, that the people make stupid decisions, therefore, it must ignore them and act accordingly. Most governments do this. It is an inherent flaw in the system. Governments have given security a bad name. Though, security and freedom are both absolutely necessary.

Once you get this official Federal military, you then slide into the secrecy that is found within the Military Industrial Complex

That's what happens when you put too much trust in the government.

The only security we need is the basic security of our borders. From there, each person should have the personal responsibility of providing their own safety. And have civil recourse should they find themselves a victim.

You do realize the time in which our FFs were writing right? We have a lot more than our boarders to worry about now. Even if we were to pull out of the world and become completely isolationist-- we'd still have external threats to deal with just because we're the United States of America, because, of our past deeds that we've committed. The FFs were writing at a time when they didn't realize that things from outside the country could reach the United States. It essentially was the pinnacle of hubris.

reply to post by 547000


Freedom isn't an opposite of equality either. That's another false dichotomy created by "individualists" on one side and "collectivists" on the other side. It's a false dichotomy framed by conservative/libertarians and progressives that think they're being intelligent but in reality, they're just engaging in mere pointless philosophizing exercises.

Of course, the reality is that none of us are equal-- but how should we treat other people? That is the question.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by 547000

 

Freedom isn't an opposite of equality either. That's another false dichotomy created by "individualists" on one side and "collectivists" on the other side. It's a false dichotomy framed by conservative/libertarians and progressives that think they're being intelligent but in reality, they're just engaging in mere pointless philosophizing exercises.

Of course, the reality is that none of us are equal-- but how should we treat other people? That is the question.

Do we have the freedom to be unequal? That seems to be a fundamental question.

reply to post by 547000


It's naive to think everyone is the same. People are only the same in so far as DNA is concerned... we share the same genes, with genetic variation, and with some biological differences. But as for our individual selves-- we are all different. I am a different person than you. I think differently. I have a different world view. I am an individual.

I think the real question is not so much equality versus freedom but rather nature versus nurture. What would you say to that?

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I fail to see how security would invariably lead to the demise of our freedoms. You see, this is the false dichotomy that keeps this whole debate going. One side thinks that we have to give up our security in order to protect ourselves while the other side thinks that we have to have our freedom and we can't have anything else but at absolute cost. The problem is when the government does things there is an inherent flaw in the system. Why? It's because the government is absolutely secretive about everything that it does. It does not tell us what its intentions are and it's more likely to use these things for bad than for good.

I think you just talked about how increased security leads to the demise of freedoms. But if you need more:

- Notice how you get groped before going on the plane nowadays? Yeah...that is "security". Nevermind that the TSA has admitted that people can sneak into the wheelwell of a plane without their detection...you must have your groin felt up so that they can ensure your safety.

- Name one police force in mankind's history that didn't end up becoming a tool for a tyrant to oppress. History is the best predictor if human behavior.

- The secrecy you discuss...that in and of itself is a loss of freedom

- The creation of a standing army to ensure this freedom creates a situation where a war machine comes to rule our nation. Like now. You feel more secure given US foreign policy over the previous 60 years? I don't.

If the government was truly representative of the people-- it would not declare all these needless wars. But the government subscribes to the philosophy of the elite where it thinks that it is above the people, and, that the people make stupid decisions, therefore, it must ignore them and act accordingly. Most governments do this. It is an inherent flaw in the system. Governments have given security a bad name. Though, security and freedom are both absolutely necessary.

This is a playing of humanities achilles heel. When you have a military might, you will use it. Human nature dictates it. Either you do it for greed (which is always the reason, since bankers control western nations), or you do it out of some misguided idealism (religious fervor, for example).

Were we to live in a world where human nature was not so flawed, the need for security would be nil. I guess i can see where you are coming from...but it is rather irrelevant as it goes against the nature of the humans that make up this world.

I will say this: if "security" costs me any freedom whatsoever, it is not worth it. I can handle myself. I feel that my neighbor has my back. I am unwilling to yield even a centimeter of freedom, beyond the observance of natural law and common law.

That's what happens when you put too much trust in the government.

Asking the government to guarantee either my security OR my freedom is a wasted effort. I trust them for nothing. I want them to guarantee my borders. If they want to create missiles, etc, that is fine. But not at the cost of my freedom (or unreasonable tax burden, like I have now).

You do realize the time in which our FFs were writing right? We have a lot more than our boarders to worry about now. Even if we were to pull out of the world and become completely isolationist-- we'd still have external threats to deal with just because we're the United States of America, because, of our past deeds that we've committed. The FFs were writing at a time when they didn't realize that things from outside the country could reach the United States. It essentially was the pinnacle of hubris.

These "things" you have to worry about are largely manufactured for your concern. It is how you are herded into the stalls.

It is another human trait: we like drama and gossip. So we are given TONS of it in the 24 hour news cycle. It is the "circus" to keep the masses amused, to keep us thinking in the way and about the things that are desirable to the puppet masters.

The Founding Fathers fought the same thing: bankers. No difference today. Tactics may have evolved, along with weapons. But for the most part men still bleed, and hearts still yearn for that promise of freedom from 1776.

Those in power will always do what they can to have more than those below them, even if it means taking from those they are put in power to protect.


On a side note I find it a bit eerie if not a bit ironic that the OP has a poster from 1984 as an avatar and speaks about government protecting us while maintaining freedoms.


Raist

reply to post by Raist


I didn't say that the government protects our freedom. If you actually re-read my posts you would see that I actually am agreeing with you. What I am trying to fight against is the Orweillian use of the term security. I want "national security" to be the way that it originally was, and, not be defined by our empire. If you get my drift.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
]Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I fail to see how security would invariably lead to the demise of our freedoms. You see, this is the false dichotomy that keeps this whole debate going. One side thinks that we have to give up our security in order to protect ourselves while the other side thinks that we have to have our freedom and we can't have anything else but at absolute cost. The problem is when the government does things there is an inherent flaw in the system. Why? It's because the government is absolutely secretive about everything that it does. It does not tell us what its intentions are and it's more likely to use these things for bad than for good.

I think you just talked about how increased security leads to the demise of freedoms. But if you need more:

- Notice how you get groped before going on the plane nowadays? Yeah...that is "security". Nevermind that the TSA has admitted that people can sneak into the wheelwell of a plane without their detection...you must have your groin felt up so that they can ensure your safety.

- Name one police force in mankind's history that didn't end up becoming a tool for a tyrant to oppress. History is the best predictor if human behavior.

- The secrecy you discuss...that in and of itself is a loss of freedom

- The creation of a standing army to ensure this freedom creates a situation where a war machine comes to rule our nation. Like now. You feel more secure given US foreign policy over the previous 60 years? I don't.


This is a playing of humanities achilles heel. When you have a military might, you will use it. Human nature dictates it. Either you do it for greed (which is always the reason, since bankers control western nations), or you do it out of some misguided idealism (religious fervor, for example).

Were we to live in a world where human nature was not so flawed, the need for security would be nil. I guess i can see where you are coming from...but it is rather irrelevant as it goes against the nature of the humans that make up this world.

I will say this: if "security" costs me any freedom whatsoever, it is not worth it. I can handle myself. I feel that my neighbor has my back. I am unwilling to yield even a centimeter of freedom, beyond the observance of natural law and common law.

The question I ask is whether people really have to trade off liberty in order to acquire security. It is my belief that security provides us safety for our country. We protect our liberty ourselves. But, I am suggesting that liberty and security could be dealt with in ways that don't contradict each other. That is, we could have much more of a constitutionalized version of security. Fascists have made you and other people think that we must trade off liberty for security-- it is time we show them that we don't need to do that in order to be more safe. In order to be safer we should be conducting foreign policy in ways that don't harm our country.

These "things" you have to worry about are largely manufactured for your concern. It is how you are herded into the stalls.

It is another human trait: we like drama and gossip. So we are given TONS of it in the 24 hour news cycle. It is the "circus" to keep the masses amused, to keep us thinking in the way and about the things that are desirable to the puppet masters.

Agreed.

The Founding Fathers fought the same thing: bankers. No difference today. Tactics may have evolved, along with weapons. But for the most part men still bleed, and hearts still yearn for that promise of freedom from 1776.

It all depends on which founding fathers you are talking about but other than that you are right on this point.