Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Freedom or Safety, Which Do You Choose?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
It has become apparent by reading through the posts here, that people are divided on the issues of Freedom and Security. I am curious what people are really wanting and if they are aware of the cost of being free or the cost of being safe.

I assume a continuum starting with absolute freedom to act in manner one wishes, through to the other end where there is complete and utter safety and security for all members of the society. Where in this continuum do you want to live, are you living there now, and how would you propose we make a "perfect" society where freedom and security are comfortably balanced? Who determines what is free or safe in this society?

I think if we collectively and honestly think through these issues, and consider the other viewpoints that I'm sure will be presented, we will all stand to learn some very interesting things about ourselves and ATS culture.

Proceed with caution and remember to bring your big-kid's underpants....




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
"When the Government fears the people you have liberty, When the people fear the Government you have Tyranny" Thomas Jefferson

I choose freedom



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
The terms of "Freedom" and "Security" are just words based on the illusion they are pushing. There shouldn't even be an argument about Freedom vs Security, the two can co-exist, It's just the fact that the federal government is forcing it's type of "Freedom" and "Security". They are far removed from the people's wishes and beliefs on those 2 words.

There is no Freedom vs Security, they both exist without corruption.
edit on 1/17/2013 by eXia7 because: spelling sucks today




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
freedom

i think i can do pretty well for the safety part all on my own.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by eXia7
The terms of "Freedom" and "Security" are just words based on the illusion they are pushing. There shouldn't even be an argument about Freedom vs Security, the two can co-exist, It's just the fact that the federal government is forcing it's type of "Freedom" and "Security". They are far removed from the people's wishes and beliefs on those 2 words.

There is no Freedom vs Security, they both exist without corruption.
edit on 1/17/2013 by eXia7 because: spelling sucks today



I don't see your logic. Freedom and Security are words with definite meanings that translate across languages, limiting the ability of "They" to manipulate the meanings.

Please explain to me how freedom and security co-exist without corruption. I really don't follow you on this one..
edit on 17-1-2013 by LetsGoViking because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
freedom
edit on 17-1-2013 by mykingdomforthetruth because: freedom



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LetsGoViking
where there is complete and utter safety and security for all members of the society.

so are you implying bankers and tptb deserve nothing less the the gallows

tribes and tribal council...or commons with only a house of commons
disputes be resolved man to man on equal ground or one man faces whole tribe or simple exile

when tribe gets to big...they separate in common welfare

i think of aboriginals as a model
they don't bear the problems society does...why

no bankers...no un...no government...no cia or fbi ....in their ranks against them from within

transparent brotherhood or exile is your lot

btw...no choice as each and everyone of us deserve both...no need to settle for less
edit on 17-1-2013 by lasvegasteddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I prefer freedom, I can take care of the safety part myself, way better than any police force could ever accomplish.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
to all, freedom IS security and security IS freedom, they are not separable.
to trade either is to lose both.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Please explain.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LetsGoViking
 


But I always thought safety was just an illusion and a -possible penance for freedom. Freedom is never penance for anything because if I'm not free, how can I possibly be safe ?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I choose Freedom. For the people who choose safety.... don't worry, people like me will keep you safe when we see that you are in danger. It has always been like that. I did it for 10 years while in the military and I am willing to do it again if it means securing the future for many more generations concerning the freedoms we ALL enjoy and exercise.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LetsGoViking

Originally posted by eXia7
The terms of "Freedom" and "Security" are just words based on the illusion they are pushing. There shouldn't even be an argument about Freedom vs Security, the two can co-exist, It's just the fact that the federal government is forcing it's type of "Freedom" and "Security". They are far removed from the people's wishes and beliefs on those 2 words.

There is no Freedom vs Security, they both exist without corruption.
edit on 1/17/2013 by eXia7 because: spelling sucks today



I don't see your logic. Freedom and Security are words with definite meanings that translate across languages, limiting the ability of "They" to manipulate the meanings.

Please explain to me how freedom and security co-exist without corruption. I really don't follow you on this one..
edit on 17-1-2013 by LetsGoViking because: (no reason given)



Hmm, perhaps I worded it wrong.

But in short, Freedom = Security.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LetsGoViking
reply to post by Honor93
 


Originally posted by Honor93
to all, freedom IS security and security IS freedom, they are not separable.
to trade either is to lose both.


Please explain.


Not sure ... and I certainly won't try to speak for anyone other than myself, but I believe it's intended along the lines of, "without a sense or feeling of personal/self safety, there can be no true sense or 'feeling' of individual freedom." (?)

't makes perfect sense, too.

If one can't be, or at least feel safe in their endeavors and daily lives, then how can they be or consider themselves free....

free to express an opinion
free to do as they will (whilst not infringing upon the same right held by others)
free to do ... whatever (?) .. within the rights or others. (?)

freedom



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
This is how I see it, and it was said best then;




They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by LetsGoViking
 

ok, based on your OP ... this is what you said ...

that people are [color=amber]divided on the issues of Freedom and Security
totally agree.
but before i continue, it must be understood that 'security' and 'safety' are not synonymous.


I am curious what people are really wanting and if they are aware of the cost of being free or the cost of being safe.
i chose not to answer this as written because it is pointless to associate a 'cost' with being safe. {safety cannot be 'guaranteed' or ensured by any means}

the cost of freedom is the only true expense.
to be free is to be secure in oneself, security in oneself leads to peace within ... the instruments used to ensure freedom, simultaneously provide security, not necessarily 'safety'.

which is why B Franklin said his famous words ... "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

notice, Ben does not mention 'freedom' or 'security' ... why ??
because Liberty ensures Freedom, it does not grant it.
and because being secure in oneself does not ever mean you are 'safe'.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 

am just reading your response and i like how you put it which isn't quite how i said it but they both say similar things.

and yes, i agree that 'freedom' is the only viable answer.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
That would all depend on who was allowing the freedom and supplying the safety.

I would rather the govt allow the freedom and I supply t h e safety.

if i have to force my freedom from t h e govt., I would not be safe.

if they supply the safety, they might run low or late when I need it.
edit on 17-1-2013 by hadriana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I like both thank you. They're not opposites except when the world is run by these goons. They're supposed to go hand in hand, Mom and Dad's energies. Freedom and unconditional love and equality and sharing, social justice, run by good people, the people, not demonic leaders or dog eat dog male energies.

It was always supposed to be like that.

I expect a wonderful world without anyone in need, and tons of development and opportunities for all and aid for those in need, with children coming first AND FREEDOM.

And nothing else.



edit on 17-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by LetsGoViking
 

ok, based on your OP ... this is what you said ...

that people are [color=amber]divided on the issues of Freedom and Security
totally agree.
but before i continue, it must be understood that 'security' and 'safety' are not synonymous.


I am curious what people are really wanting and if they are aware of the cost of being free or the cost of being safe.
i chose not to answer this as written because it is pointless to associate a 'cost' with being safe. {safety cannot be 'guaranteed' or ensured by any means}

the cost of freedom is the only true expense.
to be free is to be secure in oneself, security in oneself leads to peace within ... the instruments used to ensure freedom, simultaneously provide security, not necessarily 'safety'.

which is why B Franklin said his famous words ... "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

notice, Ben does not mention 'freedom' or 'security' ... why ??
because Liberty ensures Freedom, it does not grant it.
and because being secure in oneself does not ever mean you are 'safe'.

Ahhh, yes. I totally agree with you now that I understand what you are saying. You are absolutely correct in this assessment!






top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join