Is safety or freedom better?

[Jellian Federation]

Freedom

There is no safety without freedom

[Greater Marine]

This argument of safety over freedom would only work if people were actually safer in tyrannical regimes. This, however, is not the case, for the vast majority of tyrannies depend largely on fear and violence to legitimise the oppression they bring. They purge the elite, imagine threats, and use these to justify large scale violence, putting large parts, or all, of the population in danger. Why? Because without this intense fear and danger, their grip on society will weaken, and without danger accompanying it, safety becomes less desirable then freedom. This then makes the dictatorship invalid. Many think they will be safe by following the rethoric of the dictatorial elite. This is a lie. Stalin and the fascist regimes of Europe killed millions of loyal subjects, who were truly committed to the party ideals, and often were party members with good track records.
And, if dictatorship truly was a form of safety, why do millions flee from them every year? If they truly were safe from all threats under the power of the all-conquering dictator, why do they fear living under his rule?
Because, even if dictatorship is a form of peace, it is one that requires constant violence to uphold.

So in short, rather the occasional, often avoidable dangers of liberty then the constant danger required to maintain a dictatorship.

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

50/50, I do believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But I also do believe that humans can be highly self destructive, so I advocate for the continued illegalization of marijuana in the United States. Only because I don't think that Americans would partake responsibility.

I would also say that I do support a German model to free speech, that your ability to support who you want and your ability to disagree with the government's actions are protected, your ability to wave a swastika is not. You will be punished for outright supporting organizations like the Nazis.

And not to mention that I honestly would never think that a business has the people at its heart, so government regulation and oversight is necessary to make sure that no corporations are using their workers as slaves, or unnecessarily harming the environment.

So yeah, as I said, 50/50.

[Shazbotdom]

A Free Society is a Safe Society. Individuals should learn to protect themselves so they are not dependent on the Government to do it.

[Relikai]

I would rather Safety as Safety is being Free from Dangers, like having your friend or kid shot up by someone who has the Freedom to own guns and murder people, and the Freedom to take their own life without any justice done.

[Floofybit]

A Free Society is a Safe Society. Individuals should learn to protect themselves so they are not dependent on the Government to do it.

But not everyone CAN protect themselves

[Relikai]

A Free Society is a Safe Society. Individuals should learn to protect themselves so they are not dependent on the Government to do it.

I'll Uno-reverse and say that a Safe Society is a Free Society. Having your safety assured means you are free to participate in any lawful activity knowing that the probability of being harmed is lower.

Meanwhile in 'free societies' historical examples of lynching because they are free to do so was more than common.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperi ... g-america/ <- A White man would love a Free society but a Black would prefer a Safe society.

[The Second Order of Life]

A Free Society is a Safe Society. Individuals should learn to protect themselves so they are not dependent on the Government to do it.

Soooo survival of the fittest? Odd how unplanned, erratic anarchism seems to be the social darwinist's dream.

[Ifreann]

Trying to ensure the survival of another person doesn't help them specifically. Ancient humans weren't unfeeling weirdos who never did anything without first making an in-depth cost-benefit analysis to ensure that they would ultimately profit. Ancient humans didn't look after their children because they somehow knew and cared about preserving their genes, they did it because they loved their children.

Love evolved for a reason, too. Specifically, showing love to others shows mates that any children you have will be more likely to survive, and loving your kids means you help them survive, passing on your genes. All species work, in the end, to pass on their genes. That's how nature works. R-selected species have many kids and next to no parental management. This means while most will die, many will survive. K-selected species have few kids and a lot of parental management. This means few will die, many will survive. Humans didn't become dominant because they loved eachother or some shit, they became dominant because they were a well-evolved species.

Humans didn't become dominant because the traits they evolved, they became dominant because they were well-evolved! Very compelling point.

Do you think humans are some magical species that just didn't have to follow the rules of evolution and of survival of the fittest that every other species ever did? No, we, in our primitive forms, were just as selfish as every other species on earth. But we realised that, sometimes, showing compassion for others can help. For example, you wonder why many species tend to care about their family, specifically their siblings? It's because those siblings share half of that person's DNA. Caring for that person, to a degree, spreads your genes as well. Humans didn't think in that logic themselves, they didn't do calculations to make sure they always won, it was a part of their subconscious minds. They just did these things. Everything in a human, no matter how wondrous or caring it may seem, stems from the most basic impulse, the impulse to spread your genes. Today, however, that need and the selfish nature of humans has receded due to abundance, and in its place the more altruistic side of human nature, previously very limited, grew in how much it was used.

We realised that being compassionate can help, you say. You then explain that actually no one realised this, it was just a natural instinctual behaviour. But still you persist in insisting that humans aren't compassionate by nature, we just evolved to love and care for each other. It sounds like you're the one who thinks humans are somehow magical and separate from evolution, since you're insisting that we are selfish by nature but that this is different from the traits and behaviours we evolved.

[Freedom Russia of Future]

Security is an illusion and a tool for controlling the masses. The next step after creating a network of cameras, criminal cases for reposts and likes on social networks will necessarily follow. As well as administrative and criminal prosecution for expressing any alternative opinion.

[The Second Order of Life]

Security is an illusion and a tool for controlling the masses. The next step after creating a network of cameras, criminal cases for reposts and likes on social networks will necessarily follow. As well as administrative and criminal prosecution for expressing any alternative opinion.

So what is your proposed solution to this slippery slope?

[The Vooperian Union]

Security is an illusion and a tool for controlling the masses. The next step after creating a network of cameras, criminal cases for reposts and likes on social networks will necessarily follow. As well as administrative and criminal prosecution for expressing any alternative opinion.

So what is your proposed solution to this slippery slope?

Anarchy.

[The Second Order of Life]

So what is your proposed solution to this slippery slope?

Anarchy.

I see. How are conflict of interests solved?

[Oceasia]

The trick is that countries that aren't free are generally also not safe for its own citizens.

[Floofybit]

So what is your proposed solution to this slippery slope?

Anarchy.

How are you going to like the buildings crumbling around you?

[Ifreann]

Anarchy.

How are you going to like the buildings crumbling around you?

Buildings are crumbling around you now.

[Sky Reavers]

Buildings are crumbling around you now.

Building are more likely to crumble if ya' non-violently lock all the builders and architects in a soft room for "Safety Reasons" and for "Their own good and protection"

[The Vooperian Union]

Buildings are crumbling around you now.

Building are more likely to crumble if ya' non-violently lock all the builders and architects in a soft room for "Safety Reasons" and for "Their own good and protection"

Basically.

[Relikai]

Buildings are crumbling around you now.

Building are more likely to crumble if ya' non-violently lock all the builders and architects in a soft room for "Safety Reasons" and for "Their own good and protection"

?

Why would you lock builders and architects when they are the ones going about maintaining the system of safety lmao.

Do a better analogy please.

[Floofybit]

How are you going to like the buildings crumbling around you?

Buildings are crumbling around you now.

But not as much as if there was no government to sustain them

[American Legionaries]

Building are more likely to crumble if ya' non-violently lock all the builders and architects in a soft room for "Safety Reasons" and for "Their own good and protection"

?

Why would you lock builders and architects when they are the ones going about maintaining the system of safety lmao.

Do a better analogy please.

They might drink alcohol after work.

[Ifreann]

Buildings are crumbling around you now.

But not as much as if there was no government to sustain them

The government isn't maintaining them, that's the problem.

[Floofybit]

Keeping non criminals in small spaces is tyrannical

[Floofybit]

But not as much as if there was no government to sustain them

The government isn't maintaining them, that's the problem.

They won't be maintained without some form of government telling them what to do

[Ifreann]

The government isn't maintaining them, that's the problem.

They won't be maintained without some form of government telling them what to do

They aren't being maintained now. The government doesn't care about infrastructure maintenance. It's a huge problem and has been for years.