What is more important, National Security and profit or "Freedom"
- Thread starter 15357
- Start date
Razor
Spy
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,314
- Reaction score
- 0
No one is free in first world society, if you want to be free, move to the South American, African or Asian jungles and live in a treehouse like Tarzan.
The defence of the people, the upholding of the laws and the protection of the people take precedence over freedom - to a point, when the lack of freedom impeaches on a persons laws, their lives and their health, then freedom needs to come first. This is what is happening in America right now and in the United Kingdom to a point.
The defence of the people, the upholding of the laws and the protection of the people take precedence over freedom - to a point, when the lack of freedom impeaches on a persons laws, their lives and their health, then freedom needs to come first. This is what is happening in America right now and in the United Kingdom to a point.
The Monkey
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 16,316
- Reaction score
- 16
The freedom is more important. We owe nothing to the government, all we should do with them is demand more. After all, they have the power, so they better use it well. If not, there're gone. If you you give certain people that much power, they have to accept being harsh and demanding to.
$kelet0r
Tank
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 4,415
- Reaction score
- 0
Well ultimately no one can ever be free as we are all interdependent in society
however the purpose of government is to protect improve and enforce the quality of life that we enjoy and one of those qualities is the freedom of expression association etc.
Everything else, national security, crime etc should always be secondary to the freedom that we currently enjoy in the western world
however the purpose of government is to protect improve and enforce the quality of life that we enjoy and one of those qualities is the freedom of expression association etc.
Everything else, national security, crime etc should always be secondary to the freedom that we currently enjoy in the western world
The Mullinator
Newbie
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 0
Better in the long run for human development? Nation.
Better for human needs? Freedom.
Better for human needs? Freedom.
Except that if you don't owe the government anything then the government wouldn't exist and we would have anarchy. Which by the way I suspect people will not enjoy at all once they have it.The_Monkey said:
The Monkey
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 16,316
- Reaction score
- 16
The Mullinator said:
Of course it would. I'm just saying that it's the government's role to serve the people, not the other way around.
C
Cuddlez.ini
Guest
I believe in anarchy.
No one has the right to tell me how to live my life. But true freedom comes from within. Everybody says that if there were no government then everyone would be killed/robbed/raped etc. Well, I would not be one of the people doing that kind of stuff. Would you be doing it? Of course I know that there are people out there who would do that. I know anarchy in the truest sense of the word is, because of human nature, unobtainable. But if you go through life with an attitude that we are all equal. That everyone has the freedom to do what they choose, and you don't put down those people's beliefs, then you are living anarchy in yourself. It is when everyone does this... when people can put aside their petty squabbles and stop killing each other and start helping that we can obtain true freedom. And then we would not have to think of the "Nation" just the people, as individuals.
I know it will never happen. But it is nice to think that it could.
No one has the right to tell me how to live my life. But true freedom comes from within. Everybody says that if there were no government then everyone would be killed/robbed/raped etc. Well, I would not be one of the people doing that kind of stuff. Would you be doing it? Of course I know that there are people out there who would do that. I know anarchy in the truest sense of the word is, because of human nature, unobtainable. But if you go through life with an attitude that we are all equal. That everyone has the freedom to do what they choose, and you don't put down those people's beliefs, then you are living anarchy in yourself. It is when everyone does this... when people can put aside their petty squabbles and stop killing each other and start helping that we can obtain true freedom. And then we would not have to think of the "Nation" just the people, as individuals.
I know it will never happen. But it is nice to think that it could.
Korgoth
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,233
- Reaction score
- 0
The government doesn't feed us and educate us, we feed ourselves, we educate ourselves, our police and army are people like you and me, not some government robot. This is supposed to be a government by and for the people. We could easily live without the "government".
Just because the government takes the money we earn, then distributes an extremely small percentage of it to public services (that are run by ordinary people) doesn't make them some how vital to us, when you consider any organization could do the same, probably with less skimming off the top.
Just because the government takes the money we earn, then distributes an extremely small percentage of it to public services (that are run by ordinary people) doesn't make them some how vital to us, when you consider any organization could do the same, probably with less skimming off the top.
C
Cuddlez.ini
Guest
bvasgm
Did you even read my whole post?
Did you even read my whole post?
C
Cuddlez.ini
Guest
No no, bvasgm. He criticized my post by reiterating the same thing I said, just putting it in a more derogatory form. Which of course will only perpetuate the negative contation placed on anarchy.
bvasgm
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2004
- Messages
- 926
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah I did read it. I didn't put a more derogatory spin on it, I put a shorter spin on it... Anarchy will never work because it relies on people not being what makes us human.
By the way, the "negative contation placed on anarchy" exists because anarchy = crap, and people know it.
By the way, the "negative contation placed on anarchy" exists because anarchy = crap, and people know it.
C
Cuddlez.ini
Guest
It's people like you that make anarchy not work. :sniper: 
Kebean PFC
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2005
- Messages
- 588
- Reaction score
- 0
The nation should come first to a certain point. We live in an exaderated state of "freedom." truley nothing in life is free, and nothing should be. It costs freedom for saftey, and vice-versa. What i think must be done is reach an equilibrium of freedom and control, so that we are as free as possible and as safe as possible.
Anarchy is not possible becuase humans are... well, humans. If i want your apple now, i would ask, "Excuse me sir, could i please have an apple?" Under anarchy, i pull out my rifle, shoot you and take the apple from your cold, dead, fingers. I read your post, and even that anarchy you want could not exist. What makes people work and produce products? Money, climbing the corporate ladder, someday hoping to be the best right? Under anarchy, like communism, there is no incentive to do better. Nothing would get made or repaired, outside the realm of individual talent. Most of the comforts we know today would cease to exist (electricity and petrolium to name the two biggest). To be honest, i don't think anyone here knows what its like to be out in the forest with a ratty, holey, jacket, no shoes and no home. The only thing that keeps you alive is your awareness and the pistol on your belt. And even then you are running low on ammo, every shot must count. You dont get that much sleep becuase you know there are bandits here who will kill you for your food and ammo.
Is that how you would like to live?
Anarchy is not possible becuase humans are... well, humans. If i want your apple now, i would ask, "Excuse me sir, could i please have an apple?" Under anarchy, i pull out my rifle, shoot you and take the apple from your cold, dead, fingers. I read your post, and even that anarchy you want could not exist. What makes people work and produce products? Money, climbing the corporate ladder, someday hoping to be the best right? Under anarchy, like communism, there is no incentive to do better. Nothing would get made or repaired, outside the realm of individual talent. Most of the comforts we know today would cease to exist (electricity and petrolium to name the two biggest). To be honest, i don't think anyone here knows what its like to be out in the forest with a ratty, holey, jacket, no shoes and no home. The only thing that keeps you alive is your awareness and the pistol on your belt. And even then you are running low on ammo, every shot must count. You dont get that much sleep becuase you know there are bandits here who will kill you for your food and ammo.
Is that how you would like to live?
$kelet0r
Tank
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 4,415
- Reaction score
- 0
15357 said:
you seem confused
the people rule themselves - the government owes its power to the people and that is the way it should always be
the people owe the government nothing
the phrase means that the people are governed on behalf of the people by the people - ultimately power belongs solely to the citizens of the nation and not politicians
The Mullinator
Newbie
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 0
The government and the people work for each other, its not a one way system. If the people don't support the government then the people the people will suffer grieviously from a lack of leadership and eventually create a new government. Without the government supporting the people then the people will suffer ala variations of 1984.
If government doesn't work then they cause suffering to the people.
If the people reject the government then they are bringing suffering upon themselves.
If government doesn't work then they cause suffering to the people.
If the people reject the government then they are bringing suffering upon themselves.
The Monkey
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 16,316
- Reaction score
- 16
If they're rejecting the givernment it means that they don't like it, and hence, it have to go.The Mullinator said:
Razor
Spy
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,314
- Reaction score
- 0
The_Monkey said:
If the people don't like the government, there are 3 choices:
a) get rid of the people. Iraq
b) launch a huge propaganda campaign to brainwash them into supporting the government - America.
c) dissolve the government and hold an election. - Italy, which generally happens quite often.
kirovman
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 8,461
- Reaction score
- 0
Razor said:
Is the election process in Italy irregular in this respect?
For example in the UK, it's approximately 5 years between elections, but the PM calls for an election.
In Italy does someone else call the election, who is the spokesman for the people who want another election?
Lobotomy Lobster
Newbie
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 0
I think it's at fairly regular intervals, much like the UK.
jonbob
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 0
In the UK, the Prime Minister may call for a general election but remember that it's the reigning monarches decision to dissolve parliament or not. As memory serves, the monarch has only refused to do so once but it is still one of the Royal Prerogatives: the Queen may refuse an election if there is just cause.
clarky003
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,123
- Reaction score
- 1
with so many people voting for freedom , its quite clear to see how ill educated alot of people are about the importance of world economic's..
Economy and wealth = power, even if attained through means of corruption, or twisting words, using threat's on freedom as a play on peoples fear's. In today's reality of globalisation and government's and country's run by big buisness and war the most important thing is a that Nations profit and sustainability, our so called 'freedom' is a social bi product of ever growing profitable economic structures and elitisim.
Economy and wealth = power, even if attained through means of corruption, or twisting words, using threat's on freedom as a play on peoples fear's. In today's reality of globalisation and government's and country's run by big buisness and war the most important thing is a that Nations profit and sustainability, our so called 'freedom' is a social bi product of ever growing profitable economic structures and elitisim.
gh0st
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Messages
- 6,023
- Reaction score
- 0
The government and the people are a reciprocal relationship, one doesnt exist without the other. While we owe everything to the government (we, as in society), we cant look past the fact that we created the government - it is there to serve society in whatever way it can. We pay off our debt to the government in the form of taxes. The purpose of government is to protect us and to empower us. Nothing more.
There should always be a careful balance between freedom and protection. Admittedly, its beneficial to keep the public in the dark about a lot... in the process, we lose some of our freedom. Its necessary. However, its important not to spit upon the constitution or our fundamental rights and virtues, like our government is prone to do. America is a unique case, its a battle of a central government vs many state governments. Each are trying to gain more power over the other; not because it was intended but because its destined.
There should always be a careful balance between freedom and protection. Admittedly, its beneficial to keep the public in the dark about a lot... in the process, we lose some of our freedom. Its necessary. However, its important not to spit upon the constitution or our fundamental rights and virtues, like our government is prone to do. America is a unique case, its a battle of a central government vs many state governments. Each are trying to gain more power over the other; not because it was intended but because its destined.
Similar threads
