Is safety or freedom better?

[Luna Amore]

You need to expand your OP.

Safety or freedom in what context? Driving cars? Beekeeping? Base jumping off highrises? What is your opinion and why?

[The Vooperian Union]

You need to expand your OP.

Safety or freedom in what context? Driving cars? Beekeeping? Base jumping off highrises? What is your opinion and why?

The vagueness is intentional. You have the freedom to decide the context.
(I'll still expand it tho.)

[Portzania]

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

Could you expand on that? I don't really get what you mean.

[Storalia]

By sacrificing freedom you also sacrifice safety. Tyrannical governments which claim to take steps for security and peace often times have no issue endangering the safety of those they dislike, or those who are inconvenient. There is no safety in tyranny.

...although the obvious answer is that neither extreme is ideal, but my personal preference is significantly towards the safety camp. This is a significantly more nuanced question/answer than a single slider.

[The Vooperian Union]

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

Could you expand on that? I don't really get what you mean.

Like, what political figure matches your ideals on freedom vs. safety the most? kinda just an optional side question.

[Portzania]

I guess then Juan Perón. I don't really like his authoritarian tendencies much, but his stance on laborism, welfare, devotion to protecting the working class, being generally socially progressive, protecting the tradition of his country and being a true patriot to the state at the SAME time really connects with me.

[Verkhoyanska]

I honestly think a mix of both is what really does it. You don't want safety but no freedom, or freedom but no safety. Take both in moderation, and you'll have a successful system.

[The Vooperian Union]

I guess then Juan Perón. I don't really like his authoritarian tendencies much, but his stance on laborism, welfare, devotion to protecting the working class, being generally socially progressive, protecting the tradition of his country and being a true patriot to the state at the SAME time really connects with me.

I chose Nestor Ivanovitch Makhnov, as his ideals on the state and freedom are great IMO. Also because I'm a makhnovist, which is a branch of anarcho-communism.

[Gurkland]

I don't get this question because it depends on your definitions of the words, genuine safety and genuine freedom aren't opposite to each others as they enforce each others in theory. For example, freedom include personal autonomy and freedom to enjoy your belongings as you see it without a threat to your safety.

An expression of safety is the right of the government to enforce the law to protect you from fear and violence. However, the real world is much more corrupt and the concept of safety is abused to violate your personal autonomy and freedom using a paternalistic mindset to regulate human behavior, especially if safety is enforced without consent and when the given reason is hypothetical.

So, freedom is definitively more important to be safe from predatory safety motivated by selfless motives and those motives can be endless, such as proposing to outlaw cars to eliminate car accidents and to "keep you safe".

This quote can either means something very good or something very troubling.

On the other hand, freedom is bad only when it's a zero sum situation and your freedom reduce someone'else freedom, and if not, freedom remains a natural right stemming from our own consciousness and your default situation should to be always be free.

When choosing between freedom and safety, always remember that the burden of proof is to the one that want to have more safety when it clashes with freedom. We're all born free, so you always should carefully motivate why safety may be more important in some cases and thus the type of safety that clashes with freedom is not an universal value, unlike freedom itself.

[Portzania]

I guess then Juan Perón. I don't really like his authoritarian tendencies much, but his stance on laborism, welfare, devotion to protecting the working class, being generally socially progressive, protecting the tradition of his country and being a true patriot to the state at the SAME time really connects with me.

I chose Nestor Ivanovitch Makhnov, as his ideals on the state and freedom are great IMO. Also because I'm a makhnovist, which is a branch of anarcho-communism.

Interesting, I've read up on him a bit concerning the Russian Revolution and the power struggle between the socialist factions in the early soviet union. Very interesting beliefs to say the least.

[Ifreann]

Oppression is preferable to death.

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

The point, I suspect, is that God wills it.

---

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.

Humans needed to be altruistic and selfless to continue to live and produce offspring before we established civilisation. If our nature was as selfish and violent as people like to claim then the first humans to get pregnant would have been left behind while the tribe hunted a mammoth and that would have been the end of the us. The only reason we lasted as a species is because we've always been willing to work and sacrifice to take care of each other.

[The Vooperian Union]

I'm just saying, freedom and anarchy are the solution to the world's problems.

[Narland]

Basically, discuss if safety or freedom are better.
(Context: Freedom as in the ability to go about your daily life without oppression, and safety as in protection by the state.
There's not much I can add here, other than that I prefer freedom.

In reference to the adage (used by Ben Franklin and others), "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" then of course the choice must be freedom. Liberty temporarily surrendered to despots is rarely if ever returned, and when done so it is begrudgingly with as many strings attached as can be deigned without engendering a legal insurrection from the otherwise law abiding Citizenry.

As an open question I think this is a false dilemma. A moral and well informed self-governing Citizenry practicing civic virtue and dedicated to principles of Liberty and Equality is both free and safe (at least as safe as is possible considering all the other alternatives). The state of the state is shackled from doing mischief upon the people who are the government. The freedom to engage fully in a free and open society whilst adhering to the republican principles of constitutional governance, checks and balances, due process, and limited government, and promoting the democratic principles of maximal liberty allow for the people to work out amongst themselves just much power to grant the state for what if any desired safety. But in a Federal Constitutional Republic as the US is set up to be and wherein the people are the government, why give that precious right to make oneself, one's spouse and family, and one's community safe in their government/governance to the state?

By state it is meant state as distinguished from government in the European sense, and not State as a State of the United States in the American sense.

[Royal Frankia]

Order, by which freedom and safety are preserved.

[Floofybit]

I'm just saying, freedom and anarchy are the solution to the world's problems.

Who's to stop killing. It's guaranteed to happen

[Ifreann]

I'm just saying, freedom and anarchy are the solution to the world's problems.

Who's to stop killing. It's guaranteed to happen

Who's going to stop the government from killing people?

[Rary]

Safety is more important, but freedom should be kept in mind.

[Sky Reavers]

Who's to stop killing. It's guaranteed to happen

Murders are guaranteed to happen under any government or it's absense too, unless ya' put everyone into a separate room, which they can't leave and then strap them to walls.

[Floofybit]

Who's to stop killing. It's guaranteed to happen

Murders are guaranteed to happen under any government or it's absense too, unless ya' put everyone into a separate room, which they can't leave and then strap them to walls.

It'll happen less if there's people constantly keeping you in check.

[Portzania]

Murders are guaranteed to happen under any government or it's absense too, unless ya' put everyone into a separate room, which they can't leave and then strap them to walls.

It'll happen less if there's people constantly keeping you in check.

I'd rather not want a random policeman checking on me in my home all the time every hour.

[Kernen]

Death is preferable to oppression. No arguments.

Oppression is preferable to death.

Maybe to you.

[Gurkland]

It'll happen less if there's people constantly keeping you in check.

I'd rather not want a random policeman checking on me in my home all the time every hour.

This is exactly what could happen if you are under police protection. It is generally a case that happens when the victim has a restricted life because of someone's else criminal actions, like keeping you in check to prevent someone from killing you.

[Portzania]

I'd rather not want a random policeman checking on me in my home all the time every hour.

This is exactly what could happen if you are under police protection. It is generally a case that happens when the victim has a restricted life because of someone's else criminal actions, like keeping you in check to prevent someone from killing you.

Everyone is under police protection in my country at least. But it isn't as intrusive and annoyingly constant like what floofy suggested.

[Ifreann]

Murders are guaranteed to happen under any government or it's absense too, unless ya' put everyone into a separate room, which they can't leave and then strap them to walls.

It'll happen less if there's people constantly keeping you in check.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Kernen]

Murders are guaranteed to happen under any government or it's absense too, unless ya' put everyone into a separate room, which they can't leave and then strap them to walls.

It'll happen less if there's people constantly keeping you in check.

Who's going to watch the watchmen to keep me safe from them?

Edit: Ifreann, you beat me by seconds.