Freedom vs. Security

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

This is such a commonly bickered about topic that most of you are probably like "Fuck this nerd, he's just resurfacing a question that needed to be buried a long time ago". But nevertheless, I'd like to see the responses. Which is more important: freedom, or security?

And if you could only choose ONE of the two:
A society with no laws and complete freedom to do ANYTHING.
or
A society with laws regulating everything that could possibly be regulated and no free will.

Choose wisely.

[thatcountrykid]

freedom no questions asked

[phuckphace]

both would suck balls. I'll take neither.

[Gamma Male]

They would both probably suck, but I'd take Fallout 3 without the mutants over 1984 any day.

[Blood]

Freedom.

[Typhlosion]

The anarco-capitalist of my younger years is calling, screaming "freedom!".
On the other hand, regulation can go far and too far. How regulated would such a society be? Would it be overtakeable? How restrictive?

[Gamma Male]

I really hate it when people act like these are the only two alternatives, and that we can only be extremely free but in extreme danger or extremely controlled and extremely safe. There IS a way to be extremely free and extremely safe. Relatively speaking of course.

[Vlerchan]

There IS a way to be extremely free and extremely safe. Relatively speaking of course.
Everyone just needs their own assault rifle. More guns to make the situation better?

---

Security.

edit: I change to the Capital Wasteland.

[Stronk Serb]

Both would suck, but if there is more bureaucracy, more loopholes to abuse. But absolute freedom sounds nice too, but I would pick the middle to be honest.

[phuckphace]

They would both probably suck, but I'd take Fallout 3 without the mutants over 1984 any day.

gr8 news bro: with anarcho-tyranny (AKA the status quo) you get all the anarchy and lawlessness of Fallout with the Ministry of Peace and a full surveillance state (idk if you've been to Walmart on Black Friday but I'm pretty sure we've got mutants too.) the cops are too busy scarfing donuts and killing kids with flash-bang grenades tossed during no-knock pot raids to actually do their jobs and fight violent crime. even though they have the resources and manpower to do so, they let the gangs and hard drug trash YOLO it up while they harass normal people who behave themselves over trifles.

a guy I work with lost a cousin who was murdered downtown a few weeks ago by some ghetto gangbanger after he inadvertently witnessed a drug deal gone bad. as he was leaving the city a couple of days later for his cousin's funeral, he got pulled over and ticketed by the pigs for having expired tags (by one day) on his license plate. GO USA

[Sir Suomi]

a guy I work with lost a cousin who was murdered downtown a few weeks ago by some ghetto gangbanger after he inadvertently witnessed a drug deal gone bad. as he was leaving the city a couple of days later for his cousin's funeral, he got pulled over and ticketed by the pigs for having expired tags (by one day) on his license plate. GO USA

You make it sound like the police had prior knowledge of this, which obviously they did not. The guy had expired tags, which he should have known and replaced, regardless of the situation. Jesus, even when the police do their job right, they're criticized.

[phuckphace]

You make it sound like the police had prior knowledge of this, which obviously they did not. The guy had expired tags, which he should have known and replaced, regardless of the situation.

no, if the police were doing their jobs and enforcing the law properly, gang activity would be a non-issue and inner cities wouldn't be dystopian shitholes. instead, they focus on pestering middle class people who they can shake down for money via traffic tickets given with the expectation that they won't bother trying to fight them in court. why don't you come down and visit Oklahoma City or Tulsa, maybe take a stroll down the sidewalk at 3 A.M., and then tell me that the pigs don't have more pressing priorities than writing shitloads of $125 traffic tickets to soccer moms?

Jesus, even when the police do their job right, they're criticized.

el-oh-el. if this is what you consider a job done right I'd sure hate to see what you consider a bad one.

[Remora]

security! :<

[Gamma Male]

no, if the police were doing their jobs and enforcing the law properly, gang activity would be a non-issue and inner cities wouldn't be dystopian shitholes. instead, they focus on pestering middle class people who they can shake down for money via traffic tickets given with the expectation that they won't bother trying to fight them in court. why don't you come down and visit Oklahoma City or Tulsa, maybe take a stroll down the sidewalk at 3 A.M., and then tell me that the pigs don't have more pressing priorities than writing shitloads of $125 traffic tickets to soccer moms?



el-oh-el. if this is what you consider a job done right I'd sure hate to see what you consider a bad one.

I know you're still riding the pro war on drugs bandwagon for all its worth, but inter city gang activity has much more to do with the black market[gangs, cartels, and Walter Whites] drug trade than it does bad policing. If we were to decriminalize and regulate the sale of drugs gangs and crime would both shrink rapidly because their market share would dry up. Sure, there's still arms trafficking, but they make the vast majority of their money from the illegal drug trade. It's simple economics.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I really hate it when people act like these are the only two alternatives, and that we can only be extremely free but in extreme danger or extremely controlled and extremely safe. There IS a way to be extremely free and extremely safe. Relatively speaking of course.

I'm not saying that the fight between Freedom and Security is completely black and white, because in reality there are too many grays to, count, however, I am proposing a hypothetical situation where you either have to choose black or white.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

(idk if you've been to Walmart on Black Friday but I'm pretty sure we've got mutants too.)

Best thing I've heard all day! :lol3:

[Ethe14]

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." ~Benjamin Franklin

Freedom rings bitc**s!

[Miserabilia]

This is the exact thing as the Anarchy v.s Complete military dictatorship thingy.

[Elvalight]

Freedom all the way.

[phuckphace]

I know you're still riding the pro war on drugs bandwagon for all its worth, but inter city gang activity has much more to do with the black market[gangs, cartels, and Walter Whites] drug trade than it does bad policing. If we were to decriminalize and regulate the sale of drugs gangs and crime would both shrink rapidly because their market share would dry up. Sure, there's still arms trafficking, but they make the vast majority of their money from the illegal drug trade. It's simple economics.

lol this argument again. the Netherlands legalized prostitution which is why human traffickers who supply prostitutes to brothels don't operate in the company extensively (just kidding they do). we've also decriminalized and regulated porn, another substance well known for its difficulty to obtain. :rolleyes: "if we legalize X or Y it will go away" :lol3:

the root cause of gang activity in the United States stems mainly from poverty and racial/cultural/class conflict. since these are the types of people who only assess laws to determine the least risky way of breaking them, the obvious conclusion to come to is that it's time to turn up the heat. for example, cannabis is illegal in both the US and Singapore, however far more people choose to illegally use cannabis in the US because the penalties for being caught are a slap on the wrist in comparison (in Singapore it's death by hanging). although I don't think cannabis should be illegal, it does illustrate that once the consequences for something are made high enough and actually enforced, the overwhelming majority of people won't be willing to take that risk. there will always be a small number who do (including a tiny minority in Singapore) but very small-scale hard drug use is manageable in ways that widespread use is not.

[Gamma Male]

lol this argument again. the Netherlands legalized prostitution which is why human traffickers who supply prostitutes to brothels don't operate in the company extensively (just kidding they do). we've also decriminalized and regulated porn, another substance well known for its difficulty to obtain. :rolleyes: "if we legalize X or Y it will go away" :lol3:
I didn't say legalizing drug use would make drug use go away. I said it would make most of the crime that surrounds it go away. If we look at the war on drugs from a purely economic standpoint, literally the primary function of the DEA is to protect the profits of cartels. While it's true that poverty is the main cause of gang violence, the profits from the black market drug trade are what encourage it to happen. If we started dispensing hard drugs only from medical clinics and regulating their use, not only would HIV and overdoses not happen as often, but the cartels would be out of business.

[quotethe root cause of gang activity in the United States stems mainly from poverty and racial/cultural/class conflict. since these are the types of people who only assess laws to determine the least risky way of breaking them, the obvious conclusion to come to is that it's time to turn up the heat. for example, cannabis is illegal in both the US and Singapore, however far more people choose to illegally use cannabis in the US because the penalties for being caught are a slap on the wrist in comparison (in Singapore it's death by hanging). although I don't think cannabis should be illegal, it does illustrate that once the consequences for something are made high enough and actually enforced, the overwhelming majority of people won't be willing to take that risk. there will always be a small number who do (including a tiny minority in Singapore) but very small-scale hard drug use is manageable in ways that widespread use is not.[/QUOTE]

Now, getting people to stop using drugs is a different matter altogether. Obviously making them illegal hasn't worked. But just legalizing them probably wouldn't make them go away either. I think what we need to do alongside legalizing them is to start treating drugs like a medical issue rather than a criminal one. When we find someone addicted to drugs instead of sentencing them to prison where they'll probably continue to use them anyway, because we're so fucking incompetent that we can't even keep drugs out of our own damn prisons, we should provide them with free drug rehab therapy. I've no doubt this would be at least a bit more effective than locking them up.

[Sir Suomi]

no, if the police were doing their jobs and enforcing the law properly, gang activity would be a non-issue and inner cities wouldn't be dystopian shitholes. instead, they focus on pestering middle class people who they can shake down for money via traffic tickets given with the expectation that they won't bother trying to fight them in court. why don't you come down and visit Oklahoma City or Tulsa, maybe take a stroll down the sidewalk at 3 A.M., and then tell me that the pigs don't have more pressing priorities than writing shitloads of $125 traffic tickets to soccer moms?

So what do you expect the police to do, put an officer on every street corner, do random body searches like they did in NYC, and start checking in on buildings? They have neither the man power nor the financial means to do such, regardless of the breaches in personal freedoms that would happen. Listen, I know traffic tickets are a bitch, but you want to know why they're given? To remind people to follow the designated speed limit, and thus create a safer road environment. If nobody enforces the speed limit, do you really think people are going to follow it? If you're going to speed, that's your own choice, and you've got to prepare for the possible consequences. Maybe if we could get better education and after school programs to the youths in poorer regions of cities, that could help reduce the amount of criminals on the streets, and thus reduce the crime limit. Instead, you want to spend more money on an absolute crackdown. Cool.

el-oh-el. if this is what you consider a job done right I'd sure hate to see what you consider a bad one.


The individual was speeding. The officer's job is to give tickets to those who exceed to speed limit. He gave the individual a speeding ticket. End of story.

[Daniella98]

Freedom... But thats probably based on the fact that I live in an almost non-violent society, where some of the rules really suck

[WaffleSingSong]

Even though the Libertarian in me is screeching "FREEDUM!" You have to realize Anarchistic societies never last too long, while Totalitarian ones are at least shown to work. So, in terms of reality I...*gulp*...would probably go with the latter...

...Then again, I don't give two-shits about reality. FREEDUM!

[Dennis98]

Security

[trustn01]

Security. If the government says, "don't criticize us, don't think anything bas about us, leave where we tell you to and do what you are told, but we can guarantee that you will never be a victim of a crime", I'd rather live in a place like this than in an Anarchist society which is absolute freedom.