Safety or Liberty?

[BananaBob]

Safety or Liberty? Which option on this poll best describes you view?

[Lemur]

What part of "live free or die" is unclear?

[Ice]

Safety solely exists to ensure our freedom.

[CountArach]

Freedom, except to the point where your freedom starts to infringe on the safety of others.

[spmetla]

I think "pure freedom" would be anarchy and I do not support that. I also want little state interference in personal affairs, just enough to protect me from criminals, deter attack, safety from legal abuse, and some medical safety net. Too much would take too much of my money which I'd rather decide how to use.

[Mooks]

Freedom, except to the point where your freedom starts to infringe on the safety of others.

This man gots it completely right. Now if only the rest of america got it....

[CountArach]

This man gots it completely right. Now if only the rest of america got it....

Australia isn't America!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Freedom, except to the point where your freedom starts to infringe on the safety of others.

No this is incorrect...what this says is that it should be illegal to listen to music while you drive your car, because it infringes on the safety of the other people on the road (you are less focused on your driving when listening to music).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our
will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of
others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because
law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
violates the rights of the individual.

And I suspect a lot of people who voted for the second option are blowing smoke, that they like to proclaim their love for freedom, but when push comes to shove they'll creep back into a position of making excuses for increased government control over our lives.

Or would they take the freedom side on issues like owning guns, much less carrying guns, seat belt laws, smoking in private establishments, land zoning, building permits, health insurance, employment laws and regulations, welfare, etc.?

Complete liberty would mean no counter-measures against terrorism;

Sigh. That is false - getting rid of the random searches at airports, and making the laws that govern that open to the public, doesn't mean no air marshals can be on flights. Having to get warrants to eavesdrop is not useless compared to eavesdropping without warrants.

CR

[Adrian II]

Safety solely exists to ensure our freedom.

Yup. As long as our freedom doesn't mean only my freedom.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Went for the 2nd bottom option, though it was 50/50 with the one above it.

[Vladimir]

Only the ignorant think the two are mutually exclusive.

[Lemur]

Only the ignorant think the two are mutually exclusive.

And only someone who hadn't read the poll would posit that the OP claims they are mutually exclusive.

[Vladimir]

And only someone who hadn't read the poll would posit that the OP claims they are mutually exclusive.

*sigh* Read the title.

Freedom, except to the point where your freedom starts to infringe on the safety of others.

This is generally my view as well. Both in safety and law.

[BananaBob]

Only the ignorant think the two are mutually exclusive.

And that is why their are seven poll options...

I chose number two on the poll. I'd agree with statements such as 'Pure freedom until it interferes with the freedom of another'. Hence your urge to drink and drive interferes with another urge to live.

[Redleg]

I had to go with option 2 because it seemly is the closest to Liberty as defined by Thomas Jefferson. Rightful Liberty - which is you can not violate the rights of others in your pursuit of liberty.

[JAG]

So you lied in your third sentence, then? Not wearing seat belts does absolutely nothing to harm others. You can make no claim to be a lover of liberty if you think it's ok for the government to tell us how to live for our own - and nobody else's - safety.

No I said harm, which is not as easily definable as you may think -

Liberty - when people can do as they will, providing it does not harm others (though the definition of this is not as simple as it would seem) is the only way a free society can operate.

Firstly, not wearing a seat belt can potentially harm others but further than that as I stated it is governments duty to look at issues and legislate on things even if it means a restriction of liberty on an individual level, for the benefit of everyone. In my mind this is not loosing liberty, far from it, it creates far more liberty - it means more people will live than die every single day on the roads. It is quite possible to believe in liberty and believe in socially democratic, responsible government, which creates the best for everyone - such as creating more liberty for people at the bottom of society by giving them life chances they would never have had before.

Firstly, your assertion is completely false. Injuries by firearms in Britain (excluding pellet guns) rose four fold in the years after the 1997 ban on handguns, for one.

Blah, blah, blah - Your level of gun related crime is, and always has been, far higher than ours, nominally and in proportion.

If a society banned cars, many more people would not die than banning guns (and imagining, preposterously, no one uses guns for self defense). Yet we allow cars. That is because a car, driven properly, will not cause death, just like a gun, used properly, will not hurt innocent people.

Well apart from calling a spade an apple and saying its the same thing, a gun is built to kill people. A car is meant to let people travel from one place to another. Day in day out the fallacy in your argument of 'if guns are used properly', WAKE UP, guns are never used properly, that is qhy they should not be in the hands of everyone!

Anyway let us not turn it into a gun debate, I should have realised that before I posted about it.

Freedom is not always safe nor easy. It may not let us live longer. But what is the point of life if we are to be ruled the entire time?

A society, with a responsible government should not let us have this freedom which you speak of, freedom to die young and horribly, is false freedom.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No I said harm, which is not as easily definable as you may think -

Firstly, not wearing a seat belt can potentially harm others but further than that as I stated it is governments duty to look at issues and legislate on things even if it means a restriction of liberty on an individual level, for the benefit of everyone.

That is directly contrary to this statement of yours:

Liberty - when people can do as they will, providing it does not harm others (though the definition of this is not as simple as it would seem) is the only way a free society can operate.

Why not just admit you value safety over freedom?

In my mind this is not loosing liberty, far from it, it creates far more liberty - it means more people will live than die every single day on the roads. It is quite possible to believe in liberty and believe in socially democratic, responsible government, which creates the best for everyone - such as creating more liberty for people at the bottom of society by giving them life chances they would never have had before.

Nice to see double-speak is alive and well in Britain...

Liberty is not necessarily proportional to your longevity.

Blah, blah, blah - Your level of gun related crime is, and always has been, far higher than ours, nominally and in proportion.

Just ignore the facts, then, eh? Lol. Too bad the facts go against your statements, hmm?

Well apart from calling a spade an apple and saying its the same thing, a gun is built to kill people. A car is meant to let people travel from one place to another. Day in day out the fallacy in your argument of 'if guns are used properly', WAKE UP, guns are never used properly, that is qhy they should not be in the hands of everyone!

Hahaha! Oh, man, this is good! I'm amazed at how far a person can distort reality in their own head. Are you telling me a woman using a gun to prevent someone from raping her is not using a gun properly? Lol.

A society, with a responsible government should not let us have this freedom which you speak of, freedom to die young and horribly, is false freedom.

No, it is freedom. You take government authority and call it freedom. If a government tells us what to do for our own good, that is not freedom. And your Orwellian speech will not change that.

CR

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I think there needs to be a balance.

[HoreTore]

I say....

https://youtube.com/watch?v=T4gUSdTY15I

[Faust|]

Am I the only one having a difficult time understanding the poll? The options seem pretty nebulous... using such broad constructs as "freedom" and "safety" and actually relating them as if they were precise terms. I don't think it's useful to go all the way back to the stone age when considering questions like this. Why not frame the question in the context of one of our modern societies? That way, such a poll would be both more useful and easier to understand. Otherwise this is just time-wasting philosophizing.

If you are talking about "the extent of law enforcement" vs "the threat of bodily harm" (say, as a weighted percentage), then I would say, in general, a certain amount of reactive law enforcement to prosecute crimes will do good, but beyond a certain point I would rather just deal with the slight risk of death than having more liberties taken away.

The main threats to "safety" are: accidents (car, workplace, etc) and illness (heart disease, cancer, etc). If I have to also run the risk of being blown up by a terrorist on my way to work on top of those, so be it... Oh yes, and add to that my risk of being struck by lightning.

I would say that tactics in law enforcement must vary from area to area, but unless you are Israel, Iraq, or some such place, such tactics should be local concerns, not national ones.

*edit: Well, the poll is ok I guess, overall, sorry TS. I still have problems with the second and sixth options though... I don't think the relationship they posit is a valid one.