[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

I love my freedom so much that I am willing to accept certain risks to preserve it. I want, yes, my medical records to be inviolate. We are willing to send soldiers to die in Iraq if we think it will preserve our freedoms. I ask this: what sort of gutless people are willing to risk the lives of others to protect freedom, but are not willing to risk their own?

Freedom has costs. Brutal, cruel, harsh costs. Freedom is not comfort. Freedom is the most terrifying thing on the face of the earth, and it is damnably hard to truly believe in freedom. “Why, if the people could do whatever they wanted, there’d be anarchy! Chaos in the streets!” Deep down in our souls, we don’t even trust ourselves with freedom.

And so it is that at times like these all too many of us are willing to surrender that freedom. We’re willing to accept the Patriot Act, because after all we’re at war. We know, on an instinctive level, the truth: that freedom and safety are not entirely compatible concepts.

The question, as always, is this: which of the two is more important to you? There’s no wrong answer. But don’t lie about it.

Comments

[totient]

It has always amused me that the Trotskyists in Fornicalia call themselves the Peace and Freedom party, as though those two things weren't opposites.

(That said, I voted for Elizabeth Cervantes Barron for Senate in '94 because I just couldn't stomach voting for Feinstein).

The problem with autarchies and Hume in general (I like his articulation better than Locke or Rousseau) is that the validity of any social contract depends on the ability to decline it. But one can't just leave country A without winding up in country B; all the space on this planet is taken and it's not practical to leave it just yet. Until that time, I'll pass on the territorial autarchies. Autarchic non-territorial communities (as most good online ones are) are just fine, though; I'm free to start my own in cyberspace, and that freedom provides the incentive for the communities to be well-run that just doesn't seem to exist for the likes of Dubya right now.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say that Peace and Freedom are opposites. It's tough to be truly free under threat of physical violence, whether from a neighbor or a neighboring country. So I'd say that freedom requires peace. On the other hand, I certainly agree that not all peace includes freedom.

All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.