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!

[Tribesman]

Australia isn't America!

yet .

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

We're getting there though...

Anyone else see Kevin Rudd's salute to George Bush? ...

I voted pretty much what Count Arach said. I mean I'm ridiculously egalitarean, some of the time. But without order there isn't society, so to function as a species we have to have some measure of control. If religion fufilled its purose then we'd be sorted. Sigh... without free will humanity would be sorted.

[CountArach]

yet .

We aren't in danger. We have no oil

[macsen rufus]

On topic:

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

There's a point where liberty ceases to be realizable without a certain degree of security. Complete liberty would mean no counter-measures against terrorism; total security would mean after-dark curfews for the entire population on pain of death...

Off topic:

We have no oil

But that's why you've got the UN to extend your territorial waters, isn't it?

[Fragony]

The liberty to take care of my own safety would be just wonderful, I take liberty.

[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.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I think there needs to be a balance.

[HoreTore]

I say....

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

[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

[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.

[macsen rufus]

Quote:
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.

I think you missed the point that complete means the extreme case - complete liberty includes the liberty to blow planes out of the sky. Rightful liberty - in the Jeffersonian sense - is something else

[Tribesman]

But that's why you've got the UN to extend your territorial waters, isn't it?

No its why they got the UN to push for Timorese independance .

[JAG]

Liberty creates safety. It is only when authoritarian governments start controlling behaviour which doesn't cause harm, bringing in laws to control and divide, that people feel threatened and unsafe. 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.

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).

It is illegal over here to use your mobile phone while driving, for similar reasoning - that when on the phone the likelihood of a crash is so inflated that it is seriously endangering others liberty. If listening to music was proven to be as dangerous, and at such a level like being on the phone, then it would make complete sense to make it illegal - and that is not incorrect or contradicting anything. You may say that even if it impinges on someone else's liberty by even a fraction then this is just cause to ban it, following what I have previously said - but it isn't that simple. Many things impinge on others liberty a little bit, but you have to balance whether the withdrawal of liberty - in this case listening to music in a car - is actually creating a better society than that of leaving things as they stand - there is no need to make laws when the likelihood and effectiveness of them is so paper thin. Making a law that makes everyone wear seatbelts is a just law as it is proven that the restriction of this liberty, saves numerous lives every day.

If it was banning guns because of the likelihood of liberty being taken away from others, again it is different - because it has been proven, pretty much beyond doubt, that having a gun holding society creates far more deaths via guns. In this case taking away someone's liberty to have guns, is worth making the law. And so on and so on.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

If it was banning guns because of the likelihood of liberty being taken away from others, again it is different - because it has been proven, pretty much beyond doubt, that having a gun holding society creates far more deaths via guns. In this case taking away someone's liberty to have guns, is worth making the law. And so on and so on.

I'd bet that both you and JAG picked the same option.

I view gun ownership as a safety issue. I would feel more comfortable if good people had more guns. That safety would directly impact our ability to be free, protecting us from those who would strip us of it. Guns for their own sake are a hunters tools and I support it because it is yet another angle bolster my general support of gun ownership. I don't hunt though, so I wouldn't use a gun for that, most likely.

[HoreTore]

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.?

I voted #1

Fortunately, gun control is an utterly irrelevant issue here, I can't understand why anyone would bother with seat belt laws and I'm against anti-smoking hysteria.

As for building permits, employment regulations and welfare, I don't see them as infringements on freedom at all. Regulations are needed no matter how free a society is, to ensure that one dude's freedom isn't restricting another dude's freedom. Ie. if one guy can build however he wants to, then he could build a huge wall and block out the sun for guy #2, and that wouldn't be very nice to the other guy... Same with welfare, when people are living on the streets and eating dust, they're not very free, so that's why we all need to pinch in a little to ensure that everyone gets a shot at a little dignity...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Liberty creates safety. It is only when authoritarian governments start controlling behaviour which doesn't cause harm, bringing in laws to control and divide, that people feel threatened and unsafe. 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.
...
Making a law that makes everyone wear seatbelts is a just law as it is proven that the restriction of this liberty, saves numerous lives every day.

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.

Your position completely contradicts your high-minded ideals.

If it was banning guns because of the likelihood of liberty being taken away from others, again it is different - because it has been proven, pretty much beyond doubt, that having a gun holding society creates far more deaths via guns. In this case taking away someone's liberty to have guns, is worth making the law. And so on and so on.

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.

But that is not the important point here. 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.

If a tool can be used responsibly without harming anyone - and guns certainly can - then it is against the principle of liberty to ban that tool and not just punish those who misuse it.

Anyone who wants gun control cannot claim to value freedom.

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

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?

CR

[HoreTore]

If there was one thing I never would've thought I'd see, it had to be CR quoting a socialist...

Not wearing seat belts does absolutely nothing to harm others.

Bah. If you don't wear your seatbelt, and I hit you head on, your body will be thrown through the front window and hit and kill me. So there. Wear your seat belt, you bastard.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I thought it might speak to JAG more.

Regulations are needed no matter how free a society is, to ensure that one dude's freedom isn't restricting another dude's freedom. Ie. if one guy can build however he wants to, then he could build a huge wall and block out the sun for guy #2, and that wouldn't be very nice to the other guy

The wall example would be wrong since its infringing on the other's rights. I was speaking of how many towns require permits for houses or sheds to be built on your own property.

CR

[Kagemusha]

This is too damn broad question to answer. Freedom and safety could mean myriad of things based on the views of different people.