[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

Which is more important?

[(Anonymous)]

Between the bitch-sisters Freedom and Safety? Hrm, well, they're both great in bed, so let me think...

If the United States were a monarchy--or if it were, truly and unapologetically and without the self-denial, an empire, replete with emperor-worship and the state personified as a god--I would choose Safety over Freedom. Why? Because monarchy is cool, and romantic, yes. But also because there wouldn't be any *lies* to the contrary. We would be a society built around the needs, wants and opinions of a figure; a king, queen or emperor. We would be lied to about matters of state, yes, but at least we would *know* who is in charge and we would *know* that society's function isn't to serve us to be serve the Man on the Throne.

I would have no problem with that. I could live under a monarchy, and that being the case, I would choose Safety. Why would I not choose Freedom? Because I would know that Freedom isn't part-and-parcel to a monarchic culture, and knowing that, I would not expect Freedom.

But, we live in a sort-of-kind-of-in-theory-yes-republican-democracy, with tinges of oligarchy and plutocracy mixed in for good measure. We are, allegedly, a culture built around the government serving *us* and being an extension of *us* and protecting *us* because it is *us*. So I want Freedom. Fuck Safety--if you're going to lie to me and say that this is a government of, by and for the people, then fuck Safety. Prove to me you can preserve my Freedom. Prove to me all the crap that you say in that silly, aged, withering piece of paper under glass that we kneel before at the Federal Archives. If government truly is simply the expression of its citizenry's desires and wants and needs, then I want my Freedom.

Oh, wait, but Freedom requires the deprivation of Safety? That's fine. Burn the Constitution, toss the Congressmen out on their asses and establish a monarchy, or a dyed-in-the-wool oligarchy, or an imperial house. Then deprive me of my Safety, with the intent of preserving my Freedom. But don't lie to me and say that we're a democracy any more, because we aren't. And don't expect to believe the lies and the hypocrisy about how a truly Free society must make sacrifices to remain Free--I'll call you on your own BS, and when you fall short, I'll insist that the whole masquerade be dropped.

Brant
Divi Filius

[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.

I reject the premise.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

The premise that one must intrinsically be unsafe if one is to be free is a pernicious lie. It is a useful lie not only for thugs to excuse their jackbooted trampling of our rights, but a lie also that excuses freepers in their adolescent disdain for what makes a successful society.

I refuse to choose.

I am safe because I am free, not despite it. More precisely, I am safe because I live in a place where the people are free. I am safe when the people around me are free and recognize the value of our mutual freedom, and our mutual responsibility to protect both our safety and our freedom.

I am not safe if I am not free -- and more so, I am not free if I am not safe. Even more so, I am not safe if others are not free, because they will not, in the long term, tolerate it.

The notion that any action taken to increase our safety must decrease our freedom invents a zero-sum game where the reality is far more positive (and, potentially, far more negative -- does the Patriot Act make you more safe?) This zero-sum nonsense is part of the anti-American, anti-Western, anti-civilization lie that there is no qualitative difference between representative democracy and totalitarian dictatorship.

Re: I reject the premise.

[bryant]

Some of your safety comes from freedom. For example, you're safe reading or saying pretty much whatever you want, because we have freedom of speech.

Some of your safety comes from lack of freedom. For example, you're relatively safe from nuts with automatic weapons, because it's hard to get permission to own an automatic weapon.

Sometimes, freedom means giving up safety. That's just a fact, and it's a fact no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.

It's also a fact no matter how much you filter my words through your bias. When I said "not entirely compatible," I meant precisely that. I did not mean "any action taken to increase safety must decrease freedom."

So you can refuse to choose all you like, but you are making choices. If you vote for gun control, you're making a choice. If you vote for freedom of speech, you're making a choice.

"I refuse to choose?" That's the kind of thing a child avoiding responsibility says.

Re: I reject the premise.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

"Peace" and "safety" are canards, not unlike happiness. You're free to pursue them, and you might even achieve them, but only for a very small period of time. You cannot guarantee them; you cannot maintain them. If you can accept that, you're golden.

If you think you're safe because you're free, you are very deluded, or you are using a definition of "safe" that does not jibe with the rest of us.