Is safety or freedom better?

[Floofybit]

The pain seldom compares to the pain of gunshots and alcohol poisoning

The pain of a lack of freedom is worse.

Objectively wrong

[Terra dei Cittadini]

Socially, liberal freedom matters more, as civil rights matter most.

Economically, interventionism is key to ensure people are not harmed by corporations and to ensure the economy is equitable and efficient.

[Floofybit]

In a perfect society, murder, including most abortion, would be nonexistent. People would live long hundred year peaceful lives

[The Vooperian Union]

Yes. The state is a plague that must be abolished.

Why? Do you really want anarchy?

Yea, I'm a makhnovist; a branch of anarcho-communism.

[Wonglan Souriberieistan]

Safety is objectively better; harsh control over rights is far better than death. No agruments.

[The Vooperian Union]

Safety is objectively better; harsh control over rights is far better than death. No agruments.

Death is preferable to oppression. No arguments.

[Ifreann]

People are not safe when they are not free.

[Paddy O Fernature]

"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude." -TJ

[The Remnant of James]

Neither is *better*, just like most things, a philosophical construct isn't good or bad, but it's how it's utilized that makes the difference.
Freedom of the press to discuss and critique politics? Good.
Freedom to intentionally lie and mislead the public about what is happening in politics? Bad.
Freedom to believe certain things religiously and practice your beliefs? Good.
Freedom to use those beliefs to harm other people or treat them poorly? Bad.
Safety from violent crime through a structured legal and emergency system? Good.
Safety of criminals who use that system to protect their interests or harm others? Bad.
Safety of individuals traveling both nationally and internationally, and protection of natural resources by regulating imports and travel? Good.
Safety of individuals who use that to manipulate markets and control prices, or to keep out people they deem undesirable? Bad.

But expecting people to have a nuanced take on the internet for anything these days is stupid, so why bother

[Floofybit]

People cannot be free if they are not safe

[The Vooperian Union]

Neither is *better*, just like most things, a philosophical construct isn't good or bad, but it's how it's utilized that makes the difference.
Freedom of the press to discuss and critique politics? Good.
Freedom to intentionally lie and mislead the public about what is happening in politics? Bad.
Freedom to believe certain things religiously and practice your beliefs? Good.
Freedom to use those beliefs to harm other people or treat them poorly? Bad.
Safety from violent crime through a structured legal and emergency system? Good.
Safety of criminals who use that system to protect their interests or harm others? Bad.
Safety of individuals traveling both nationally and internationally, and protection of natural resources by regulating imports and travel? Good.
Safety of individuals who use that to manipulate markets and control prices, or to keep out people they deem undesirable? Bad.

But expecting people to have a nuanced take on the internet for anything these days is stupid, so why bother

I'm an anarchist, and I'm talking about freedom and safety as obscure concepts.

[The Remnant of James]

People cannot be free if they are not safe

I'm an anarchist.

Ladies and gentlemen, my point made for me

[Floofybit]

Safety is objectively better; harsh control over rights is far better than death. No agruments.

Death is preferable to oppression. No arguments.

Oppression is preferable to death.

[Floofybit]

Why? Do you really want anarchy?

Yea, I'm a makhnovist; a branch of anarcho-communism.

That's rather selfish of you. Survival of the fittest kills the weak, and as a physically challenged person, I like life

[Ifreann]

People cannot be free if they are not safe

Amusing comment to make in between describing the cells you want to lock people in if they dare drink a beer.

[The Vooperian Union]

Yea, I'm a makhnovist; a branch of anarcho-communism.

That's rather selfish of you. Survival of the fittest kills the weak, and as a physically challenged person, I like life

What about anarchy makes you thnk I like survival of the fittest?

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

A mix, but if I had to choose one, most certainly freedom. Also, having freedom doesn't mean you can't have security. It isn't a "one or the other" choice.

[Floofybit]

That's rather selfish of you. Survival of the fittest kills the weak, and as a physically challenged person, I like life

What about anarchy makes you thnk I like survival of the fittest?

What government is gonna help the weak when there is no government?

[The Vooperian Union]

What about anarchy makes you think I like survival of the fittest?

What government is gonna help the weak when there is no government?

The people? Human nature is objectively caring.

[The Remnant of James]

I'm an anarchist, and I'm talking about freedom and safety as obscure concepts.

I realize that, and my whole point is that talking about safety and freedom as concepts and categorize them is pointless, because it is impossible to make a blanket statement that one is superior to the other. Which one is "better" it's entirety contingent on the context of the individual situation. Trying to argue that safety is better than freedom or vice versa is the political/philosophical equivalent of whether it's better to use a wrench or a hammer with no context.

[Necroghastia]

Death is preferable to oppression. No arguments.

Oppression is preferable to death.

What's the point of life if you are prevented from living?

[The Vooperian Union]

I'm an anarchist, and I'm talking about freedom and safety as obscure concepts.

I realize that, and my whole point is that talking about safety and freedom as concepts and categorize them is pointless, because it is impossible to make a blanket statement that one is superior to the other. Which one is "better" it's entirely contingent on the context of the individual situation. Trying to argue that safety is better than freedom or vice versa is the political/philosophical equivalent of whether it's better to use a wrench or a hammer with no context.

I agree with you there, but the point of this thread is to argue about abstract concepts. You decide on the context.

[Portzania]

Oppression is preferable to death.

What's the point of life if you are prevented from living?

People under oppressive regimes/people experiencing oppression just don't kill themselves.

[Sky Reavers]

I am still gonna vote for freedom. Oppressive regimes give ya' neither freedom, nor safety and just screw ya' over.

[Adamede]

Safety is something that can never truly be guaranteed.