Which will you choose? Freedom or Security??

I don't want anymore rights taken away I choose Freedom over security,

If the FBI and CIA did there job 9/11 would not have happen.



down with the patiot act!

I'm assuming this is a simple poll.

Freedom here, any day.

My gov's "security enforcment" need only go so far.

In my opinion, it has already gone far beyond that. Too far into my personal life, and well-being.

"Patriot Act"?
More like "Power Act"

Misfit

In the words of Braveheart ....... FREEE-DOM !!!

And not the type where i am Free to live as a Good Christian ... but the Freedom to live my life however i chose to live it...as long as it does not affect the freedoms and liberties of other Americans. If other people do not approve of the way I live my life ... that is just too bad for them. I am a Free Person, and should not be in-prisoned for the way i want to live... as long as it doesn't affect any one else.

See my Sig.

I would have to go for both.
I see both going hand-n-hand.




seekerof

Vital freedoms can't be permanently given up for small measures of security, hence the need to agreesively prosecute the terror wars and prevent the civil society from becoming heavily policed and developing a siege mentality. But, obviously, everyone exchanges freedom for security to varying degrees. Its a question of how much and what kinds of freedoms in exchange for what kind of security. Pink Floyd had it right, eh, don't trade a warm summer field for a cold steel rail or hot ashes for trees, etc etc.

We give up freedoms every day tho, the freedom to take what you want and do what you want, in exchange for the security of society itself, and the freedom to not pay taxes and have to obey the rules of hte system in exchange for governance and social programs and all the like. But if we're talking about the freedom to say what you want or the freedom to not have government troops living in your house or the freedom to vote in exchange for, well, anything, then its probably not worth it, certainly not outside of a temporary emergency situation. I mean, if you're walking down the street and a riot breaks out, you'd welcome the sudden and overpowering loss of freedom that is the police comming in to restore order, because it'd be no more than a day or a few hours. Its definitly not as simple as 'freedom' for 'security', you're brutalized to death without security and dominated into nothingness without freedom.

I would have to say freedom.

I do not believe that there ever was a security issue in the US.

I am convinced that 9/11 was foul play.

This whole "security" thing is an infringement on my rights and freedom.

And I am an advocate of downing the "patriot act".
There is nothing patriot about it.

Originally posted by Critical_Mass
I would have to say freedom.

I do not believe that there ever was a security issue in the US.

I am convinced that 9/11 was foul play.

This whole "security" thing is an infringement on my rights and freedom.

And I am an advocate of downing the "patriot act".
There is nothing patriot about it.

I totally agree. And I know you meant foul play on the part of our government.

You have to question why Bush, when claiming that 9/11 was an attack on our freedom, claims that the remedy is taking away freedom. That reeks of an inside job--which makes the Patriot Act all the more insidious and treasonous.

Both.....freedom being the most preferred.

We actually pay for our security thru taxes.

So the question should be,
Would you rather not pay taxes and have no security provided by the Government? Then many people will use thier "freedom" to violate your "freedom"....it's a complicated issue. There has to be line for both.

Let's just say that whatever security measures the government comes up with HAVE to be in line with the Constitution.

The Patriot Act and the Constitution are diametrically opposed.

I think this needs to be a little more specific to me a fair poll. Anyone is going ot say freedom at the drop of a hat. The questions is what freedoms are you willing to loose in order to be secure, or feel safe. Bin Laden has been used now as a boogey man to take away basic freedoms. Not of the typical white american, but of the Aribic-Americans and anyone who poses a threat to the current administration.

I choose freedom, but then I don't really want the chance of someone ringing a doorbell and firing a shotgun at me as I open the door.

Freedom for me.
Always.
All the security I need is right here by my bed and is cal. .45 -1911a1--WWI commemorative.

Would you rather physically prevent your children from ever leaving your house so that they won't ever get hit by a car, never leaving your sight. (Security)

Or would you rather let them learn about risk through experience, and gain understanding of the world around them, through their own decisions? (Freedom)

Those who say both are not answering the question.

I'll take...

FREEDOM!

Already have both freedom & security, if we didn't this would not be happening. Now the issue is to maintain, with in ones best capability these "liberties", so taken for granted...

Hesitate not, to banish the demonous doubts lurking. When you control timing and distance, the battle is in your favor.

Sun Tzu was no bodies fool.

- ADVISOR

I think both are possible with freedom being first. Not all tragedy in life can be predicted or avoided. Just remember the people of the FBI and CIA are human beings and mistakes do happen and like in many fields in law enforcement mistakes can lead to death. But that does not make individuals that work hard and try to do their best responsible for the insane minds of terrorists.

We don't have this feeling of Terrorist are going to kill you in Britain because we realize that the threat is made up by your Government who seem to need to control you for some reason. If Tony Blair brought anything like the Patriot act into Britain he would be dead meat.We don't live in fear of terrorists because its a complete man made thing to reduce freedom.

so, are those of you in the "both" camp saying that your child could venture out into the world and experience their freedom without you or them ever having to worry about being hit by a car, ever?

edit: "Hit by a car" probably isnt appropriate. You can replace it with "raped". "shot", "mugged", etc. if you like.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by cargo]

I don't think the use of a child fits this. Children are still under parental control this if they want more freedom I suggest they do more chores around the house.

I can only comment for me and I feel that security is important and needed and that we just cannot get rid of it. I do not think that the gov't needs to be in my bedroom or on my computer though at all hours of the night and day. As for what you referenced (rape, mugging etc) that falls to law enforcement which are vital and I do not think are stepping on my freedom at their level. Law enforcement at federal levels gets a bit more gray. I seriously doubt your local cop spends time following you around for the heck of it but not sure I can say the same for a federal agent.

Freedom!
i am not be living in a jail ok... i rather take the small chance of getting kill than lose the freedom... besides how does losing freedom give us more security...

Stupid Bush and his Patiot ACts...
I just want to burn that act...

I agree that there should be certain firewalls against any threats. No doubt. And I also agree with you in regards to grey areas. But personal responsibility is becoming absent in many societies. I do not expect a cop to have his gun pointed at a muggers head 2 seconds after they say "give me your wallet". That's absurd. You are only as secure as you make yourself. Situational awareness and risk assessment will guide you through well, but these things can only be learned by you. You should not have to rely on anyone else but yourself. Anything that comes after is a bonus and probably too late to make as much of a difference as you already can alone.

btw my analogy was also a reference to the government parenting you. Imagine being that parent, with an eye on your child 24/7. Then multiply the children. It's impossible. There is no such thing as 100% security. It can only go so far and at that stage it probably wont be of much help.

I would rather enjoy full rights and bear the burden of personal responsibility than live a caged life against a known/unknown/supposed threat. If that threat were to confront me, then I would rather be ready to deal with it as an individual.

In the end, who does the limiting of rights serve the most? You or your babysitters?

[edit on 18-6-2005 by cargo]