What Price Freedom?

[Starkist]

What is compelling enough for you to warrant trading some freedom?

Security From Terrorism:
This is the one we always hear about, and the one that dubious quotes are used to reference. Should we trade some of our freedom of movement if it means we are kept safe from terrorism? Is even the illusion of security worth the cost in freedom? Should we trade some freedom of speech if it means that the government will catch would-be terrorists before they kill anyone?

National Health Care:
It seems inevitable that the United States will soon have a national health care plan similar to Canada and other so-called progressive nations. As it stands right now, I can reject all insurance and trust in myself to provide financially if I get sick. If Senator Clinton enacts her plan, which is similar to several others in the works, the government would take money from my paycheck to pay for a national insurance system, just as it does for Social Security. Speaking of which...

A Retirement Safety Net:
This one is rather moot, since it is already in effect. But what do you think? Is it right that the government takes some of your money that you have earned and payed income tax on and doles it out to old people? None of us here have lived in a world without Social Security, but there was a time when people saved on their own. Even if I fully fund a 401K, IRA, and whatever else I need to ensure a comfortable retirement, I still must pay Social Security.

Automobile Insurance:
This is a similar situation. Right now in my state, Washington, I am required by law to purchase insurance. I do not have the freedom to drive without insurance. This is ironic, since I also have an insurance line called "Uninsured Motorist." Of course you can say that the government has every right to demand certain conditions before I use public roads, however, that can also be used to censor free speech over public airwaves.

Saving The Earth:
This is the big one. This is the one that garners mockery from certain people around here. Would you accept a government restriction on your travel in the name of reducing your so-called "carbon footprint" ? We already give up many freedoms when it comes to our own property: Here in Washington, certain wetlands prohibit development, and in King County the government can arbitrarily designate part of your land as environmentally protected, prohibiting development or sale. Is this an acceptable trade-off?

The Sensibilities Of Your Neighbours:
Will you accept restrictions on your speech so that you do not offend another ethnic or religious group? This is already the case in quite a few public universities. Will you accept restrictions on the use of your property if your neighbours complain? I read a news story today about a man in England who is being forced to remove a pirate flag from his house because his neighbours complained. Should the government be able to restrict speech, in any form, if it offends someone else?


So what price is your freedom worth? These options are just the tip of the iceberg. Opponents of the USA PATRIOT Act cry out against trading freedom for security. If that is the case, then is anything worth your freedom?

[The_Amaster]

I'd actually trade all of those things for freedom, and then subvert the system and get freedom my own way, but thats just me...

[Daarkseid]

The Sensibilities Of Your Neighbours:
Will you accept restrictions on your speech so that you do not offend another ethnic or religious group? This is already the case in quite a few public universities. Will you accept restrictions on the use of your property if your neighbours complain? I read a news story today about a man in England who is being forced to remove a pirate flag from his house because his neighbours complained. Should the government be able to restrict speech, in any form, if it offends someone else?



Just letting people know the asshole who voted for this took it an entirely different way and did a poor job of reading.

He is an idiot and his example should not be followed.

I'm talking about myself, I'm that idiot.

[Beldaran]

The Sensibilities Of Your Neighbours:
Will you accept restrictions on your speech so that you do not offend another ethnic or religious group?

I am already forced accept these restrictions by a christian majority who prevent explicit sex and certain words from being broadcast on television. I would enjoy television a lot more if there was nudity, sex, and foul language, but I will never get to see it on television because of the oppression of the religious.

[Starkist]

I am already forced accept these restrictions by a christian majority who prevent explicit sex and certain words from being broadcast on television. I would enjoy television a lot more if there was nudity, sex, and foul language, but I will never get to see it on television because of the oppression of the religious.

Watch cable, dork. ;) I do see your point though.

[The_Amaster]

Okay, more serious this time. (Well, I was above, but assuming I couldn't do that...)

For the record, these are not my moral views, these are the practical views I take if I were living as a member of society. (i.e not in High School)

Security From Terrorism:
If it effectively keeps us safe from terrorism? Yes. Show me statistics of reduced terrorist threats and I don't mind a few infringements.

National Health Care:
No, as I have worked hard and intend to do something with my life, at which point I can afford health care.

A Retirement Safety Net:
Once again practicaly, no. Mostly because all of the baby-boomers are going to screw me over, and I don't want to do that to my kids. Also see response: "Health Care"

Automobile Insurance:
See "Health Care" and "Retirement"

Saving The Earth:
I'll do it voluntarily. I'm not an Eco-nut by any stretch, but you'd have to be crazy not to accept improved cars and other technologies if the quality is the same.
So I say yes because there are in fact idiots out there.

The Sensibilities Of Your Neighbours:
Hell no. "Political correctness" is one of the things that bugs me the most about todays world. If someone has a problem with what I say, let them address it and provide their point of view, don't censor me.
If Christian organizations are unhappy with the level of profanity and vulgarity on TV, give them their own stations where they're free to be as clean as they wish.

[Beldaran]

Watch cable

Cable is heavily censored. You can't even say "shit" or "fuck" on cable TV. Only stations like HBO, which you have to pay extra for, allow nudity, and even they don't allow hard core pornography.

If there was truly no fear of offending religious groups, I'd be able to watch explicit, penetrative naked sex on TNT after the basketball game. If only it were so...

SpikeTV claims to be TV for guys, and yet there not a titty to be found. "TV for guys" MY ASS. If it was really TV for guys, it would be 24 hours a day of different naked lesbians having sex and giving away coupons for free beer.

[phattonez]

The threat of 1984 freaks the hell out of me. I don't want to get rid of my freedoms for anything.

[me2]

I'm not the only one who thought "saving the earth" involved something like a Hollywood action movie plot, right?

Because yeah, I'd totally give up some freedoms to blow things up like a badass and get all the ladies when I'm done. As long as we all survived. :smoking:

[ShadowTiger]

Had an interesting thought. Are we talking global freedom, (As in, complete freedom,) or specific, individualized locative freedom? For example, although we don't see much swearing on television where applicable, the internet is pretty much a free domain for doing almost whatever you can imagine. Only the actual site can censor you as it sees fit. Look at 4chan for example. The degree of freedom the site itself has is different from the freedom that any "Anonymous" user has, simply by not stating his or her or its name and posting through a proxy. It can still perform the same acts that it would have, with no true penalty.

If I were free to fly a pirate flag, where would I be free to do so without being subject to people shouting "I DETEST PIRATES. THEY PROMOTE HOMOSEXUALITY." .. somehow. .. ? If not in my own yard, then where? In my front hallway? If someone walked into my living room and saw a coaster with a pirate flag emblem on it, how would that be any different than seeing a miniature flag on my coffee table sporting the very same offensive pirate flag image? I keep thinking that things like that are far too subjective to place an actual law on or against. Perhaps a jury consisting of people from the entire spectrum range of intelligence would prove so incapable of producing a proper judgment that they would have to throw out the case and reassess the case from the foundation.


If there was a way to withdraw from the social security net entirely, it would be interesting; in that you wouldn't have to pay social security taxes, but wouldn't receive any benefits whatsoever from it. I doubt that would work however, as the math involved in such a thing wouldn't quite add up in the long run relative to what you would pay versus what you would receive. I don't know the values though, so I won't speculate further.

I'm not so sure about such methods of saving the earth, but it's plain as day to me that it needs to be done somehow. (But I'm quite biased from the start, however, so don't take me too seriously here.) Animals need their spaces too, but even when allotted specific zones for their own natural activities, they'll still end up leaking onto human areas and eradicated on the humans' time and place where applicable. "Ew, a bug on the floor!" "Ew, a squirrel is eating my picnic food!" "Ew, an endangered rhino is on my shoe! Get it off." Try putting any endangered species on the do not kill list when they're in ur house eatin ur foodz and virgins.

[rock_nog]

To me, saving the Earth is the only one on that list that requires abandoning any freedom. How can I argue in favor of giving up a freedom? Because in this case, I'm being affected by other people's actions, regardless of my own. I should have the freedom to breathe clean air. Yes, I know that's not directly connected to issues like global warming, but let me explain. Smog, ozone, and carbon dioxide are all products of the same sources - auto and factory emissions. If you reduce the emissions, you cut down smog, ozone, and carbon dioxide.

I mean, personally, I think we shouldn't take any chances with global warming, but more to the point, the same steps that will help reduce global warming will also address more pressing matters like smog and ozone, and I don't think anyone can argue for the right to put others at risk for serious health problems.

[Sam Atoms]

You forgot to include 'a smart, pretty and devoted life-partner.'

[MottZilla]

Fuck it all. You're all going to die. You might as well be as free as you can before you do. Fact. The government cannot protect you from terrorists. This is absolute. If someone is truely determined to do damage you aren't going to stop them.

And as for saving the Earth by restricting carbon from travel or something sounds fishy too. While you might hope it'd cause development of cleaner energy and production, it could also cause a huge amount of damage to our already damaged country.

[Joe123]

The NHS ain't so bad you know...

[Lilith]

---