Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > News & Issues > Freedom or Security?

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Freedom or Security?

Whiplash24 posted this thread...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 2:47 pm

What many don't realise about these two is that you can't have both. Do you want your rights that are guaranteed to you by the Constitution? Or would you rather have Security? The government both state and federal can put cameras everywhere, track everyone's movements. Put cameras in public restrooms. Violating everyone's privacy for Security. H.ell TSA already does that job. 
 
Basically Privacy/Freedom or Security. Which is would you rather have, keeping in mind you can only choose one, while giving up the other?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 3:32 pm

"It's better to die free than to live like a coward."

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
sorla replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 6:23 pm

FREEDOM!! That isn't even a competition. I don't need no government looking out for me, I can take care of myself and others around me.  

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrow replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

 
 
I've kind of given up on the other thread (on RKBA) because I've come to the conclusion that we have a fundamental philosophical difference. You would live under an arbitrary human government power that you believe “protects” you from the hostile society around you. You would become a slave to do so.


 
I, on the other hand, would rather be left alone to protect myself and my community from whatever criminal elements come against it. I would be free.
 
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 9:25 pm

you can have security and freedom. You can have it by forming citizens groups do defend your security, these groups must be directly responsable to the people they serve. An example would be the Workers Patrols in the Spanish Revolution they were volunteer, and had to justify every action to an assembly of all the workers in the area the lived in.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Whiplash24 replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Alright, take away the military, law enforcement, fire department, EMT, and Hospital doctors, all of you are at the mercy of drug cartels, Al Quieda, terrorists. You name it. Terrorists will have a feild day. America will die slowly while the rest of the world watches us burn. Guarnteed no one on this thread would last more than a month. Reality of Life right there peeps. No matter how bada.ss you think you are or how annoying the police are. The brutality they show, whatever. 
 
 
Im all for Freedom, but I prefer where the law enforcement and goverment are because without them we are scr.ewed. And everyone knows here, that there is always a bigger fish. Not to mention you can't be a doctor, judge, lawyer, firefighter, and soldier at the same time. At least not successfuly.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Whiplash24 replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 9:44 pm

Very brave of you to say that youd protect those around you and i give you props. But the real life murderer with a gun that is normally behind bars will laugh at you in your face. When you stand up to him. And while that is noble and you will probably be killed it could all have been solved if you hadnt given up the government. By the people for the people and to the people.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 10:06 pm

1. Terrorists would't want to kill us if the US government didn't go around fucking with the third world.

2. gangs are a result of economic destruction and brutal police treatment by cops of the poor and minorities. (sometimes listen to the police thing in my town, 3 black people walking over from the poor town next door is called a gang invading)

3. An anarchist society would be better at isolating crazy people because it would have greater socialization and better treatment because of the removal of the profit motive.

4. ?Without the lord protecting us in his castle how will we ever be safe." you defending cops sounds like that

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 10:07 pm

Whiplash24: They made the same aguements your making to defend feudalism

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
sorla replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 10:28 pm

I'd be there till the end, don't know what you're sayin, whiplash XD And yeah, if the government wasn't around, I would help people in need. It's the moral thing to do, and let's be honest, helping others makes you feel good. But when it really came down to it, I'm gone. I won't be fighting no revolution, I'd be waiting it out in the mountains eating squirrel, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't try to assist my fellow man. I'd prefer an Anarchy because it would allow me to be completely free, if other people can get along, well screw them, I hope they rip each other to pieces. But I will defend myself and anyone that needs defending.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
sorla replied...
Sept. 6, 2012 at 10:28 pm

I'd be there till the end, don't know what you're sayin, whiplash XD And yeah, if the government wasn't around, I would help people in need. It's the moral thing to do, and let's be honest, helping others makes you feel good. But when it really came down to it, I'm gone. I won't be fighting no revolution, I'd be waiting it out in the mountains eating squirrel, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't try to assist my fellow man. I'd prefer an Anarchy because it would allow me to be completely free, if other people can get along, well screw them, I hope they rip each other to pieces. But I will defend myself and anyone that needs defending.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DynamoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Sept. 7, 2012 at 4:45 am

Agreed Honor:)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Sept. 7, 2012 at 1:31 pm

What kind of society government creates:  The Rich have power over the Poor
 
What kind of society Anarchy makes:  The Fit have power over the unfit 
 
I'd rather have a balance of the two.  I'll be completely honest, I'm very biased here.  I have a visual disability and if there wasn't government to stop people from exploiting it anymore than they already do then there's a fair chance I would be dead by now.  
 
Quality of Life is what we should be going for here, I think a balance of freedom and security is better.  
 
P.S:  I know this is a specific example, but I really don't care if the government can see me in public restrooms.  I'm not stupid enough to do something I shouldn't be doing in them, why should I care if they see me takin a dump? :P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Breece6This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Sept. 7, 2012 at 1:31 pm

What kind of society government creates:  The Rich have power over the Poor
 
What kind of society Anarchy makes:  The Fit have power over the unfit 
 
I'd rather have a balance of the two.  I'll be completely honest, I'm very biased here.  I have a visual disability and if there wasn't government to stop people from exploiting it anymore than they already do then there's a fair chance I would be dead by now.  
 
Quality of Life is what we should be going for here, I think a balance of freedom and security is better.  
 
P.S:  I know this is a specific example, but I really don't care if the government can see me in public restrooms.  I'm not stupid enough to do something I shouldn't be doing in them, why should I care if they see me takin a dump? :P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Sept. 7, 2012 at 10:05 pm

breece6: please read this before critizing anarchism
 
htt p://libcom.o rg/thought /anarcho-syndicalism-an-introduction
 
h ttp://libcom.org/thought / anarchist-communism-an-introduction

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrow replied...
Sept. 8, 2012 at 2:49 pm

 
If I am killed, so be it.  Better to be crushed than to bow.
 
I think we could have something like the American colonies though.  They had threats (Native Americans/French, weather, wild animals, etc.) but were able to pull together to defend themselves.  Early America was essentially an anarchy -- but everyone knew you had to get along with others if you wanted to survive. 
 
I guess it's hard to see where we would get that community today.  Everyone's so wrapped up in his or her own life, and the only friends we have are cyber, living hundreds of miles from each other.  There are communities, though, where a group of people thinking along similar lines has come together to prepare for what they see coming in the future.  Some of them probably have eye problems, but that doesn't mean they can't contribute to society. 
 
If you think about it, in an "anarchy" where everyone was truly against everyone else, all the kids would probably get killed for food, so it would be self-destructing. 
 
----
 
Here's a few quotes from Frederic Bastiat.  Please read them carefully and tell me where you think he went wrong.  (The ellipses are mine.)
 
"What, then, is law?  It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. 
 
Each of us has a natural right---from God---to defend his person, his liberty, and his property...  If every person has the right to defend---even by forch---his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.  Thus the principle of collective right---its reason for existing, its lawfulness---is based on individual right.  And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.  Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force---for the same reason---cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups... 
 
...Force has been given to us to defend our individual rights.  Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers?...
 
...If a nation were founded on this basis [That no collective organization had more rights than an individual--JS], it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed.  It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable---whatever its political form might be. 
 
Under such an administration, everyone woud understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence."
 
So Breece, if the Toilet Safety Administration has the right to watch you, they got it as a collective right from individuals... Hmmm... I wonder what Breece looks like... 
 
Here's a download link for The Law.  It's not long, and it kind of gets you thinking. 
 
h ttp://www.fee.org/library/books/the-law-by-frederic-bastiat-free-download/

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrow replied...
Sept. 8, 2012 at 2:52 pm

*force, would. 
 
Sorry.  I didn't proofread the quotes.  oops. 
 
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Imaginedangerous replied...
Sept. 8, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Okay, assuming that the original question was meant to be answered with the framework of government/realistic American society (and even if it wasn't, I'm going to answer it that way anyway because I don't want to get into yet another debate about anarchy :) -
 
I'd choose secrity. Call me a wimp, but I'm willing to make some sacrifices to stay alive.
 
That doesn't mean I don't want any freedom, though, because I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. The real world is not black & white and I think it's possible to find a happy balance.
 
In fact, if you remove too much freedom, you also start to decrease security. Look at most of the nonfree governments in history (and today). When there is so little freedom that the people are at the mercy of the government, nobody is secure. The threat has just changed from the outside (okay, so maybe the government is now capable of stopping terrorism) to the inside (now the government is what might kill you).

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Sept. 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm

You know, I looked up the word privacy while thinking up a response, and here’s what I got. The state of being apart from other people and not seen, heard, or disturbed by them. Now it would seem to me, that the government can’t have an actual person watching you all the time. Whenever you’re on one of their cameras or are writing something down electronically, odds are it all just gets saved on to a hard drive somewhere and they only actually look at it or distribute it if need be.
 
That’s why I’ve come to the conclusion that this debate is silly. We already have freedom, privacy, and security. After all, there hasn’t been another 9/11-like event, has there? The country hasn’t descended into complete madness, has it? It seems to me that the government does the best it can of respecting our freedoms (which by the way, privacy isn’t written into the Constitution) while making sure that people are safe.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Sept. 9, 2012 at 1:59 pm

By the way, if anyone’s interested about how an anarchistic or semi-anarchistic nation would look, you should get into the show Jericho. It aired between ’06 and ’08, and does a wonderful job examining terrorism and how the people survive in a post-apocalyptic world.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback