Is safety or freedom better?

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

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

The people? Human nature is objectively caring.

Not objectively. Human Nature is objectively self-serving, and violent, as it helped our ancestors continue to live and produce offspring, to continue the species. But in our modern age, that nature is almost entirely useless as most people has at least most of their needs fulfilled, so that nature has mostly been replaced by the altruistic attitude we have when being helpful and caring to others provides more benefit than selfishness.

[Floofybit]

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

The people? Human nature is objectively caring.

It's also objectively selfish. Who's to stop an aggressive, larger family from attacking a smaller, weaker one? If they run, how are the weak going to follow? If they fight, how are the weak supposed to defend?

[Untecna]

Safety for all is better than allowing people the option to be able to put themselves in harm's way.

[Zanderlock]

Just like everybody needs to get an understanding of, BALANCE BETWEEN THINGS

[Floofybit]

Oppression is preferable to death.

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

You can still live under surveillance. Maybe you'll just need to change to live a happier, safer life afterwards

[Floofybit]

Just like everybody needs to get an understanding of, BALANCE BETWEEN THINGS

Freedom is good. But I believe the scale should tip towards safety

[Shotorzkia]

Safety is much preferred when it comes to many situations. If there is a serial murderer who escaped from prison, I think the police should have the right to search houses/apartments in the neighborhood, even without a warrant. If there are radical groups causing domestic turbulence, I think the state has every right to clear streets/set curfews to make the situation better. Also goes for disease outbreaks. Call me crazy, but I firmly believe that (important) vaccinations should be mandatory, such as for measles and smallpox. Vaccinations for diseases that aren't prevalent in my country/aren't dangerous don't need to be. And during pandemics, taking protective measures should be mandatory for all. Ofc I don't want an oppressive regime, but I think that people who make life unenjoyable for others should not be protected in the name of "freedom", even if it means curbing civil liberties to an extent.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

The people? Human nature is objectively caring.

It's also objectively selfish. Who's to stop an aggressive, larger family from attacking a smaller, weaker one? If they run, how are the weak going to follow? If they fight, how are the weak supposed to defend?

The state is literally, by definition, the largest, most aggressive, most powerful "family". What's to stop the state from killing everyone who wants freedom? You only enjoy life because you are, for all intents and purposes, free.

[Floofybit]

Safety for all is better than allowing people the option to be able to put themselves in harm's way.

Exactly my point.

[Shotorzkia]

Safety for all is better than allowing people the option to be able to put themselves in harm's way.

Exactly.

[The Vooperian Union]

The people? Human nature is objectively caring.

It's also objectively selfish. Who's to stop an aggressive, larger family from attacking a smaller, weaker one? If they run, how are the weak going to follow? If they fight, how are the weak supposed to defend?

Even if human nature is selfish, it is still of benefit to help others; as you would get help in turn.

[Floofybit]

Safety is much preferred when it comes to many situations. If there is a serial murderer who escaped from prison, I think the police should have the right to search houses/apartments in the neighborhood, even without a warrant. If there are radical groups causing domestic turbulence, I think the state has every right to clear streets/set curfews to make the situation better. Also goes for disease outbreaks. Call me crazy, but I firmly believe that (important) vaccinations should be mandatory, such as for measles and smallpox. Vaccinations for diseases that aren't prevalent in my country/aren't dangerous don't need to be. And during pandemics, taking protective measures should be mandatory for all. Ofc I don't want an oppressive regime, but I think that people who make life unenjoyable for others should not be protected in the name of "freedom", even if it means curbing civil liberties to an extent.

I would be 100% for this proposal. This sounds like heaven (metaphorically)

[The Vooperian Union]

It's also objectively selfish. Who's to stop an aggressive, larger family from attacking a smaller, weaker one? If they run, how are the weak going to follow? If they fight, how are the weak supposed to defend?

The state is literally, by definition, the largest, most aggressive, most powerful "family". What's to stop the state from killing everyone who wants freedom? You only enjoy life because you are, for all intents and purposes, free.

That's... basically my point.

[Necroghastia]

I do wonder where Floofy's line is - he's already admitted to being totally fine with 24/7 surveillance on every household in the name of safety, so what else is there? Do we ban nuts and shellfish, since there are people who get ill simply being around them? What about amusement parks, they have plenty of accidents over the years. Ban hunting, accidents happen with that as well. All libraries and bookshops should have to be stocked according to a whitelist, lest anyone get any dangerous ideas of challenging some part of society. Ban dark-colored clothing, so it is harder to sneak up on people at night.

[The Vooperian Union]

Safety is much preferred when it comes to many situations. If there is a serial murderer who escaped from prison, I think the police should have the right to search houses/apartments in the neighborhood, even without a warrant. If there are radical groups causing domestic turbulence, I think the state has every right to clear streets/set curfews to make the situation better. Also goes for disease outbreaks. Call me crazy, but I firmly believe that (important) vaccinations should be mandatory, such as for measles and smallpox. Vaccinations for diseases that aren't prevalent in my country/aren't dangerous don't need to be. And during pandemics, taking protective measures should be mandatory for all. Ofc I don't want an oppressive regime, but I think that people who make life unenjoyable for others should not be protected in the name of "freedom", even if it means curbing civil liberties to an extent.

I would be 100% for this proposal. This sounds like heaven (metaphorically)

That sounds like a statist dystopia.

[Portzania]

I do wonder where OP's line is - he's already admitted to being totally fine with 24/7 surveillance on every household in the name of safety, so what else is there? Do we ban nuts and shellfish, since there are people who get ill simply being around them? What about amusement parks, they have plenty of accidents over the years. Ban hunting, accidents happen with that as well. All libraries and bookshops should have to be stocked according to a whitelist, lest anyone get any dangerous ideas of challenging some part of society. Ban dark-colored clothing, so it is harder to sneak up on people at night.

OP is an anarchist, do you mean floofy?

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

Safety for all is better than allowing people the option to be able to put themselves in harm's way.

Exactly my point.

But it's not true. Many people don't want safety. They prefer happy, enjoyable, but perhaps short, lives, over long, depressing, and restrictive ones. I am one of them. I'd rather have 30 years of joy and happiness than 80 of pain and suffering. Especially considering, like, 30 of those years I can't even do a lot of any remaining shit not banned by the state because I'm too old.

[The Vooperian Union]

I do wonder where OP's line is - he's already admitted to being totally fine with 24/7 surveillance on every household in the name of safety, so what else is there? Do we ban nuts and shellfish, since there are people who get ill simply being around them? What about amusement parks, they have plenty of accidents over the years. Ban hunting, accidents happen with that as well. All libraries and bookshops should have to be stocked according to a whitelist, lest anyone get any dangerous ideas of challenging some part of society. Ban dark-colored clothing, so it is harder to sneak up on people at night.

...I'm the OP, and my line is the complete opposite.

[Stellar Colonies]

Are they such a binary choice?

[Necroghastia]

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

You can still live under surveillance. Maybe you'll just need to change to live a happier, safer life afterwards

What do you think I am, a camgirl? If someone wants a 24/7 live feed they better pay up.

[Portzania]

I don't know why people think they can't have fun over safety. It's not like when the 10 commandments were written, everyone in the entire world stopped having fun. You can have a democracy and also have safety and regulations on unsafe things. I don't think we should go floofy tier authoritarian on people, but it's not impossible to have a balance... Right?

[Necroghastia]

I do wonder where OP's line is - he's already admitted to being totally fine with 24/7 surveillance on every household in the name of safety, so what else is there? Do we ban nuts and shellfish, since there are people who get ill simply being around them? What about amusement parks, they have plenty of accidents over the years. Ban hunting, accidents happen with that as well. All libraries and bookshops should have to be stocked according to a whitelist, lest anyone get any dangerous ideas of challenging some part of society. Ban dark-colored clothing, so it is harder to sneak up on people at night.

OP is an anarchist, do you mean floofy?

I do wonder where OP's line is - he's already admitted to being totally fine with 24/7 surveillance on every household in the name of safety, so what else is there? Do we ban nuts and shellfish, since there are people who get ill simply being around them? What about amusement parks, they have plenty of accidents over the years. Ban hunting, accidents happen with that as well. All libraries and bookshops should have to be stocked according to a whitelist, lest anyone get any dangerous ideas of challenging some part of society. Ban dark-colored clothing, so it is harder to sneak up on people at night.

...I'm the OP, and my line is the complete opposite.

gdi
apologies

[Corporate Collective Salvation]

Are they such a binary choice?

No.
Moderation in all things will put one in an honest middle ground, but there in lies the rub, because the last thing those asking the question want is an honest medium.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

I don't know why people think they can't have fun over safety. It's not like when the 10 commandments were written, everyone in the entire world stopped having fun. You can have a democracy and also have safety and regulations on unsafe things. I don't think we should go floofy tier authoritarian on people, but it's not impossible to have a balance... Right?

I get that, but Floofy and those who agree with him are literally saying they'd rather force everyone to have a completely safe life than have any freedoms.

[The Vooperian Union]

In terms of your opinions on freedom/safety, what political figures are closest to your ideals?

My ideals are closest to Nestor Ivanovitch Makhnov.