?

I think we would all like a nice combination, but which do you value more?

9/21/2006 2:25:46 PM

Hard to say. I don't believe in magical afterlives or big invisible buddies, so I'd say I'd maximize safety/security to the degree that I still have the freedom to do and create what I'd like.

9/21/2006 2:26:55 PM

Quote :

"I'd say I'd maximize safety/security to the degree that I still have the freedom to do and create what I'd like."

9/21/2006 2:29:33 PM

Freedom. With freedom I am free to do what it takes to maintain my own safety.

9/21/2006 2:40:25 PM

Quote :

"Freedom is free of the need to be free."

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

My question: Are freedom and safety/security permanently in a state of mutual exclusivity?

9/21/2006 2:50:58 PM

^ Well, I think it's one of those things where when one goes up, the other goes down.

9/21/2006 3:11:08 PM

Quote :

"Freedom. With freedom I am free to do what it takes to maintain my own safety."

9/21/2006 3:15:38 PM

good luck stopping those terrorists from suicide bombing you. Hope you have enough money for personal security guards.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 3:20 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2006 3:20:13 PM

^ You are very nearsighted. You seem to think that my idea of "free to protect myself from terrorists" involves hiring bodygaurds. I would say that it means I'm free to speak out and protest against the american policies that breed hatred against us in the first place and free to move to safer parts of the country or out of the country.

Anyway, give me liberty or give me death, amiright?

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 3:25 PM. Reason : werds]

9/21/2006 3:23:38 PM

Quote :

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

9/21/2006 3:25:38 PM

I want to introduce a concept.

If it generates enough debate, I'll call it off and start another thread about it. The concept is that of responsible versus irresponsible freedom. Freedom can be irresponsibly used, I'll say, to suppress human freedom and enable the suppression of human freedom. When performed without informed, rational justification at minimum, uses of freedom can be thus labeled irresponsible, and many times are costly.

This obligates pointing out that when performed with informed, rational justification, certain uses of freedom are also irresponsible. This isn't that shallow form of relativism people are used to hearing. I'll posit, perhaps unnecessarily, that accurately informed, rationally justified decisions based on our Constitutional distinctions lead more often to responsible uses of freedom than irresponsible uses.

Would anyone care to agree or disagree?

9/21/2006 3:31:15 PM

^ I'm confused... can you give some concrete examples of what you mean?

9/21/2006 3:33:03 PM

Sure.

Irresponsible uses of freedom:

- Kidnapping young women and making sex slaves out of them
- Breaking into your neighbors house and stealing all of his shit (or moving in)
- Walking into a grocery store empty handed, and leaving without paying for what you've taken
- Plotting to kill your wife and child
- Purposefully distorting the dissemination of accurate information with impunity
- Discriminating against cultural minorities with legal distinctions
- Legislating against bedroom activity, artistic material, and other nonviolent expressions of consciousness

Responsible uses of freedom (incredibly broad):

- Being a sexual deviant who follows basic risk-reducing procedures including disclosure
- Owning guns but following basic safety measures
- Seeking to understand or disseminate accurate information
- Writing a book
- Posting on TWW
- Eating your toenails
- Calling an idea stupid
- Thinking reading is retarded
- Playing sports
- etc.

9/21/2006 3:43:18 PM

does everybody fear posting in here since they probably favor freedom for themselves but security for the Iraqi people?

9/22/2006 9:41:44 AM

Solid question.

9/22/2006 9:44:41 AM

I don't give a shit about the Iraqis.

9/22/2006 10:05:26 AM

i believe in another thread you were pretty clear that you favored the police state of Saddam's regime to the current, more free Iraq, so we know your position already

9/22/2006 10:08:49 AM

Quote :

"Freedom is free of the need to be free"

free your mind and your ass will follow.

also, whats the point of feeling safe if you dont have any freedoms. Feeling safe because the state says your safe is some communist shit.

oh and honestly a large portion of the world is not free so liberating the iraqi people so they can just set up some fucked up theocracy isnt really that great imo.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:12 AM. Reason : !]

9/22/2006 10:10:55 AM

Quote :

"whats the point of feeling safe if you dont have any freedoms"

because you still have the right to "life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness)"

9/22/2006 10:11:54 AM

Quote :

"i believe in another thread you were pretty clear that you favored the police state of Saddam's regime to the current, more free Iraq, so we know your position already"

Really? I clearly said somewhere that I favored a police state for any group of people on the planet?

9/22/2006 10:14:48 AM

^^

9/22/2006 10:15:25 AM

so how does this tie in with the fact that I have a better change of getting killed by an arab that just wants my money opposed to one that wants to kill me in the name of allah?

also we should stop driving cars because its a danger to my health.

9/22/2006 10:15:49 AM

^^^you favored Iraq with Saddam in power to the current Iraq, so yes

^you have a chance of getting killed by all types of people who want your money

however chances are if someone kills you in the name of a God, its gonna be Allah

9/22/2006 10:17:26 AM

Quote :

"^^^you favored Iraq with Saddam in power to the current Iraq, so yes"

Correct. We are less safe with the current situation.

9/22/2006 10:19:48 AM

so what does that have to do with my freedom and safety as an American?

you sound like Ralph Nader. His seat belts are your muslims.

and im sure you hate Ralph Nader.

9/22/2006 10:21:34 AM

^^so you agree you prefer the police state Iraq to the free Iraq...like I said

^I would expect people who are so gung-ho about freedom to think that all people should be free, not just Americans

9/22/2006 10:46:49 AM

Quote :

"I would expect people who are so gung-ho about freedom to think that all people should be free, not just Americans"

I think that whoever wants to be free should have opportunity to fight for that right as they see fit. The difference here is that I don't think that anyone should fight that fight on their behalf.

9/22/2006 10:57:54 AM

well thats fine

but how, for example, were the Jews supposed to fight against the Nazi's for their freedom without help?

9/22/2006 11:05:15 AM

godwined

9/22/2006 11:11:53 AM

They could have fought without help. Whether they would have won or not is another matter.

Besides, a number of them just left the area. There's another option right there.

9/22/2006 11:14:34 AM

Quote :

"Besides, a number of them just left the area. There's another option right there"

left in boxcars for concentration camps? i mean i guess its technically an option...

9/22/2006 11:17:25 AM

I refuse to compare the destruction of the Jews by a huge super power which very well could have taken over all of Europe to the killing of Kurds by a shitty country in the middle east. And we had the chance to help the Kurds in '92 but we fucked them over.

If people want to be free they will find a way to become free. However, Iraq is going turn into a theocracy which imo is not free and that is what the people will want. Theres no helping that.

9/22/2006 11:23:12 AM

Quote :

"left in boxcars for concentration camps? i mean i guess its technically an option..."

Your ability to make totally retarded comments never ceases to amaze me.

I don't know about you, but I've met a number of jewish people who say "my Grandpaents came here from [country where jews were oppressed by nazis] [before/during] the war."

asshat.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 11:25 AM. Reason : quote]

9/22/2006 11:24:38 AM

freedom, then again i'm not one of these paranoid country folk who think the next terrorist act is going to happen while they are sitting in a gas station buying cigarrettes

9/22/2006 11:25:14 AM

^or sitting in their WTC office typing up an email

^^you havent met any Kurds I guess...cause newsflash, jews arent the only people who have ever been oppressed

^^^hey do you think all the Katrina victims could have just left New Orleans before the storm hit since you think all the Jews could've just left their Nazi oppressors?

Quote :

"I refuse to compare the destruction of the Jews by a huge super power which very well could have taken over all of Europe to the killing of Kurds by a shitty country in the middle east. And we had the chance to help the Kurds in '92 but we fucked them over. "

its a damn good thing we'll never know what a "shitty country in the middle east" couldve done if Saddam had continued to get his way as a cold hearted dictator

but in your perspective, who cares if they couldve taken over Europe? I mean the Europeans could've just left Europe right? Shouldnt have been our fight right? I mean Nazi Germany wasnt a threat to the US right...just a threat to their people and their neighbors...you had people back then saying we shouldnt get involved in that war...but in hindsight its a good thing we did...just like what hindsight of Iraq will be

9/22/2006 11:32:23 AM

Quote :

"^^so you agree you prefer the police state Iraq to the free Iraq...like I said"

You are being lazy with your words for the nth time this week. Where US safety is concerned, yes, I prefer Iraq under the control of Saddam than the current situation. Save the "the US is the savior of the world and a democractic beacon of light" talk for a time when our country's resources aren't needed to fight the real threat, which is terrorism.

9/22/2006 11:40:05 AM

^^ your logic is hurting my brain.

I agree that we should have helped the Kurds at the end of Desert Storm. We didnt and that sucks but that does not mean over a decade later we pick up and try and save the people of Iraq from Saddam. Im glad the Iraqi people are happy now and when they form a Theocracy under to Koran its going to be a fucking shit show and we will start from square one.

Iraq never was a threat to the US and no acts of genocide were commited on the Kurds for over a decade........Darfur?


Also 4-6 million Kurds live in Iraq which is not even close to sizable to Europes population.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 11:41 AM. Reason : 1]

9/22/2006 11:40:34 AM

9/22/2006 11:42:33 AM

Quote :

"I mean Nazi Germany wasnt a threat to the US right..."

Well, you are wrong idiot, and this basically destroys your entire argument.

Quote :

"just like what hindsight of Iraq will be"

JUST LIKE VIETNAM!!!!

9/22/2006 11:42:50 AM

This was what I was attempting to (^^) earlier:

Quote :

"free your mind and your ass will follow. also, whats the point of feeling safe if you dont have any freedoms. Feeling safe because the state says your safe is some communist shit. oh and honestly a large portion of the world is not free so liberating the iraqi people so they can just set up some fucked up theocracy isnt really that great imo."

Didn't get to edit.

9/22/2006 11:42:54 AM

Quote :

"When performed without informed, rational justification at minimum, uses of freedom can be thus labeled irresponsible, and many times are costly."

Couldn't agree more, G-Cat.

Quote :

"how, for example, were the Jews supposed to fight against the Nazi's "

David Friedman points out:
"In order for the (interventionist foreign) policy to work, you must correctly figure out which countries are going to be your enemies and which your allies ten years down the road. If you get it wrong, you find yourself unnecessarily blundering into other people's wars, spending your blood and treasure in their fights instead of theirs in yours... The problem with an interventionist foreign policy is that doing it badly is much worse than not doing it at all... It is difficult to run a successful interventionist foreign policy, and as libertarians we do not expect the government to do difficult things well"

The goal of preventing a gov't from mass killing its own as well as other countries people may be altruistic and justified, but hardly the responsibility of any other country. Our fed. government's job is to protect us from foreign attack. Nothing stops private people from taking up arms and going over to fight, but we shouldn't force every American to pay for policing the world.

9/22/2006 11:43:20 AM

Quote :

"Where US safety is concerned, yes, I prefer Iraq under the control of Saddam than the current situation"

no shit how many times are you going to reword that you prefer the police state of Saddam's rule to the current Iraq where freedom is being slowly implemented

Quote :

"Quote : "I mean Nazi Germany wasnt a threat to the US right..." Well, you are wrong idiot, and this basically destroys your entire argument. "

State409c

Please tell me how Nazi Germany was more of a direct threat to the United States than Iraq was with Saddam?

9/22/2006 11:45:00 AM

^^^ didnt get to edit what

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ^^^]

9/22/2006 11:45:59 AM

^^

Subs off the coast of the US, Suggesting Mexico attack the US, attacking a number of our alllies in Europe.

and when Saddam attacked an allie we stopped it.

9/22/2006 11:47:35 AM

Quote :

"Please tell me how Nazi Germany was more of a direct threat to the United States than Iraq was with Saddam?"

See other thread, but simply put, a more massive military force and the in progress proof of the capability to wage war, of shich Iraq and Saddam wasn't.


You are just a massive dumbass by your continued refusal to acknowledge the fact that Saddam had no capability to wage war even in the middle east, let alone on our soil, and couldn't have gotten it any time soon.

9/22/2006 11:52:14 AM

Quote :

"attacking a number of our alllies in Europe. and when Saddam attacked an allie we stopped it. "

When Germany attacked our allies, we stopped them

When Saddam attacked an ally, we stopped them...but we didnt stop Saddam...until this current war...we basically said "ok, we've stopped Hussein from attacking Kuwait, our job is done"...then we went back like "hmmm...he's still in power...why wouldn't he attack other allies?"

Quote :

"You are just a massive naive as shit dumbass by your continued refusal to acknowledge the fact that Saddam had no capability to wage war "

too much media brainwashing for State409c

9/22/2006 11:52:25 AM

Quote :

"You are just a massive dumbass by your continued refusal to acknowledge the fact that Saddam had no capability to wage war even in the middle east, let alone on our soil, and couldn't have gotten it any time soon."

YOU CAN'T INVADE A COUNTRY WITH AK47s, A FEW TANKS, AND SOME SANDY PLANES YOU DIPSHIT.

9/22/2006 11:53:26 AM

but you can take over europe with a few blimps? to oversimplify the situation like the utter dumbass you are

9/22/2006 11:54:41 AM

I already posted this once, did you just not read it?

Quote :

""5. Iraq Is No Longer a Significant Military Threat to Its Neighbors Iraq's offensive capabilities have been severely weakened by years of bombings, sanctions, and UN-sponsored decommissioning. Its current armed forces are barely one-third their pre-Gulf War strength. Iraq's navy is virtually nonexistent, and its air force is just a fraction of what it was before the war. Military spending by Iraq has been estimated at barely one-tenth of its level in the 1980s, and the belief is that the country has no more functioning missiles. None of Iraq's immediate neighbors have expressed any concern about a possible Iraqi invasion in the foreseeable future. The Bush administration has been unable to explain why today, when Saddam Hussein has only a tiny percentage of his once-formidable military capability, Iraq is considered such a threat that it is necessary to invade the country and replace its leader--the same leader that Washington quietly supported during the peak of Iraq's military capability.""

At this point, I'm done again. I'm really hoping theDuke will read this and see how hard you are trolling and be done with you.

9/22/2006 11:54:54 AM

Quote :

"You are just a massive dumbass by your continued refusal to acknowledge the fact that Saddam had no capability to wage war even in the middle east, let alone on our soil, and couldn't have gotten it any time soon."

9/22/2006 11:55:54 AM