what is most important?

This is a question asked in my nieces college class.

Rank the following in order of most important to least important. (these are the only 3 options given in class)

security, liberty, equality.

To me liberty is the most important by far, without it you are a slave in all but name.

Equality is second because without liberty you cannot have true equality.

Security is a distant third, because short of living alone in a secure box surrounded by mines and motion sensor activated automatic weapons all security is to a degree an illusion.

What she told me next made me proud and sad at the same time, she was one of three people in a group of 50 that argued for liberty to be first, the majority said security, then equality and liberty being a distant third.

I am proud of her for knowing and standing for what's right and yet deeply saddened that so many are brainwashed into thinking surrendering liberty for security is a good thing.

Edit she says the class was called democracy in a troubled America.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Those are the choices the state wants to limit us too.

Its a dilemma they face us with. You can't be free and secure they say, so we'll surround you with security and provide all your needs.

That in practice yields real world environs like Gaza, for instance. In a more broader sense and the world over, large cities.

a reply to: intrptr

I agree there are many more options...

It just saddens me to see people are so ready to surrender liberty for perceived security.

the children are supposed to be our future and if the future is govt controlled with no freedom... I don't know.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I ditto your choices. Without liberty, there is nothing to secure or make equal.

That's like asking Which is more important, food, water or shelter?
Without all three you die.

Without security, liberty & equality, the country dies.

Ask a lion in a cage at the zoo if he prefers security, or the liberty to run wild again. Ask the same to a bird in a cage. Will the bird choose the security of the cage, or the liberty to fly free again??? Our minds are what is living in a cage. Give liberty back to your mind and you can fly and run freely once more.

I'm guessing the teacher had a lot to do with the answers given, I doubt if you did a survey asking average Americans they'd swing more toward liberty than security... well at least I hope so. Hopefully your niece wasn't given a lower grade for choosing the "wrong" answer.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Nope apparently he's a pretty good teacher that tries to get his students to think.

I would switch the last two: liberty, security, equality.

And when I say security, I am talking about security of borders, security of person and property (i.e. protection of basic unalienable rights before the law).

With liberty and security in our rights and security within our borders, then we are truly all equal at the base.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I agree with you: liberty is first... liberty is the pillar of democracy. Then equality... but doesn't equality come hand in hand with liberty?

Security, just like liberty and equality, is another human right.... but I think security can end up costing our liberty the way things are going. I don't think we can have them all at the same time.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Rank the following in order of most important to least important. (these are the only 3 options given in class)

security, liberty, equality.

Ideally, equality would create liberty and bring security.

The fly in that perfumed ointment is the ageless debate about the definitions of each of these terms.

Liberty and Equality are frequently exclusive in the minds of people. For example, many ATSers want the liberty to refuse services to minorities which torpedoes equality. In contrast, many other ATSers believe that equality means never refusing services to minorities and that infringes on the liberty of the others.

Many people in democratic, developed countries want liberty to include the right to emigrate to less-developed countries. They might want a second home in a country where the weather's good and the cost of living is cheaper. They don't want the flip-side of equality that allows people in less-developed countries to emigrate to their own country where they have better standards of living.

I think we're driven by ideals and can't escape the biological drives that mean we nearly always fall short of them. As such, we're always fighting each other to impose our own respective notions of liberty, equality and security.

As a species we're always 'starting the diet on Monday' and talking the talk without sticking to the plan that we know makes most sense.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Wow! You have some skewed ideas.

I want laws, and I want the laws to apply the same to everyone. That is equality, but to way too many people, they want equality of outcome which by definition means you cannot have security in your person or property. After all, in order to have equal outcome, if one person winds up with more or less, then someone must be empowered to take and give as they see fit which negates security in property. After all, it's not really mine if someone else can take it or give it on a whim is it?

I want laws that also define borders. You are free to come here if you follow those laws to do so. It shows that you respect the place you are coming to.

And yes, liberty does mean freedom to associate. But that's the same freedom for all. If someone won't associate with you for some reason, instead of being butt hurt about it, refuse to associate back. However, generally speaking, most of what I see is the fear from some ATSers that when some people don't want to be forced to participate in activities they find to be against their conscience, it will translate to a general blanket discrimination across the board, something that didn't exist before but will magically now exist because those ATSers and the media declare it to be so.

a reply to: Irishhaf

It just saddens me to see people are so ready to surrender liberty for perceived security.

If you know the difference you are free.

the children are supposed to be our future and if the future is govt controlled with no freedom... I don't know.

Yes you do. They can't tell you who you are. You can tell the kids that awareness of the difference between freedom and slavery is key.

Once they know that, they will always be forewarned. I think a lot of todays kids behaviors point right back to that. They don't trust and they don't go along because secretly they already know. They may not know what do do, just what not to…

Conan knows what is best...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Irishhaf

Those are the choices the state wants to limit us too.

Its a dilemma they face us with. You can't be free and secure they say, so we'll surround you with security and provide all your needs.

That in practice yields real world environs like Gaza, for instance. In a more broader sense and the world over, large cities.

Protection requires restrictions which means reduced liberty. I challenge you to name a single safety procedure or item that doesn't include restraints. The closest I can think of is a gun as that provides liberty and security, but even a firearm comes with restrictions on when and how you use it.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: intrptr

I agree there are many more options...

It just saddens me to see people are so ready to surrender liberty for perceived security.

the children are supposed to be our future and if the future is govt controlled with no freedom... I don't know.

Todays college students are for the most part 18-20 years old. That means they were born between 1995 and 1997. They don't remember a world prior to being felt up by TSA agents, or getting to walk to the boarding gate with your loved ones in an airport, or not constantly being told of terrorists out to kill them. These people, if they were in school at all were in kindergarten when 9/11 happened. We all know how much things changed then and can remember a world where liberty trumped security. They don't, to them security above all is the only thing they've ever known.

a reply to: ketsuko

Wow! You've skewed some comments about human nature in general and taken them personally. To be honest, when I wrote them, I wasn't particularly aiming them at you. Truth is, your politics are unknown to me.

Your personal dispute over my generalities rather proves the point that people can't agree about definitions. YMMV apparently ; )

a reply to: Aazadan

Protection requires restrictions which means reduced liberty.

Liberty gives me freedom to protect myself.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aazadan

Protection requires restrictions which means reduced liberty.

Liberty gives me freedom to protect myself.

Not always. Liberty gives others freedom to harm you. If there were no food regulations (a restriction that protects) people could sell you poisoned food and get away with it.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: ketsuko

Wow! You've skewed some comments about human nature in general and taken them personally. To be honest, when I wrote them, I wasn't particularly aiming them at you. Truth is, your politics are unknown to me.

Your personal dispute over my generalities rather proves the point that people can't agree about definitions. YMMV apparently ; )

Not personally, so much as aimed ideas I hold near and dear as things that are lower than dirt.

You come at things from the 180 degree angle. There is a reason why we need personal liberty to hold our ideas, and why that liberty must be paramount.

The difference between your schema and mine is the reason. Otherwise, one of us might seek impose our schema on the other. Neither of us is right to do so.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aazadan

Protection requires restrictions which means reduced liberty.

Liberty gives me freedom to protect myself.

Not always. Liberty gives others freedom to harm you. If there were no food regulations (a restriction that protects) people could sell you poisoned food and get away with it.

With liberty comes responsibility.

Also, in general, it is a crime to knowingly seek to injure others as it infringes on their right to life. To sell poisoned food would quickly land one on the foul side of the law.