Is safety or freedom better?

[Primitive Communism]

The dichotomy presented is a false one. It proposes that the two are incompatible; that one must be sacrificed for the sake of the other. This is only true in a statist society as the overbearing state arbitrarily defines and enforces "safety" measures which simply serve as a facade to protect those in power from the wrath of an oppressed and exploited populace. The state engages in the illusion of security to lull observers into a false sense of safety wherein they believe that harm cannot come to them because the state is there to prevent that, yet the reality is that the state is often the one inflicting harm or at the very least is creating the conditions which breed criminality either through apathy or sheer malice. Freedom and safety are therefor both being suffocated by the state in the name of unquestionable order in the form of all-encompassing security. True freedom and safety therefor can only exist in a Communist society as the removal of the state, class system, hierarchy, market economy and property eliminates virtually all root sources of oppression and destitution leaving communities at the mercy of no one but themselves.

[The Vooperian Union]

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.

The people fix things. The government and money do not.

[Floofybit]

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.

At least new homes and buildings are being met. And at least SOME repairs are being done. Better than none

[American Legionaries]

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

At least new homes and buildings are being met. And at least SOME repairs are being done. Better than none

The government doesn't repair homes though, the owners do. Same with most public buildings

[The Second Order of Life]

At least new homes and buildings are being met. And at least SOME repairs are being done. Better than none

The government doesn't repair homes though, the owners do. Same with most public buildings

This analogy is somewhat pointless, I dunno why ya'll indulged in it.

I've yet to receive a responsr on how an anarchist society resolves conflicts between its individuals. If a person claims a certain right and another does the same, who or what gets to decide who is right?

[Godular]

False dichotomy. One should not have to choose.

[Forsher]

Freedom without a minimum level of actual safety is a legal fiction.

Whether you can be too safe, I can't be arsed thinking about at the moment.

[Ifreann]

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

At least new homes and buildings are being met. And at least SOME repairs are being done. Better than none

Infrastructure is falling into disrepair because of the government. The government is in charge of repairs now and they aren't doing it.

[The Second Order of Life]

Freedom without a minimum level of actual safety is a legal fiction.

Whether you can be too safe, I can't be arsed thinking about at the moment.

It's not legal fiction, it's just fiction. No legal system can exist without some form of coercion to enforce it, and some security and stability to ensure that it does not change merely to suit people's emotions. Legal security is a vital aspect of Law systems.

[The Vooperian Union]

To quote makhnov himself, "Power breeds parasites. Long live anarchy!"

[Indecent Anime Empire]

Anime is better than freedom or safety.

[Floofybit]

At least new homes and buildings are being met. And at least SOME repairs are being done. Better than none

Infrastructure is falling into disrepair because of the government. The government is in charge of repairs now and they aren't doing it.

And NO government will help with repairs, how?

[Ifreann]

Infrastructure is falling into disrepair because of the government. The government is in charge of repairs now and they aren't doing it.

And NO government will help with repairs, how?

People can organise repairs themselves.

[The Vooperian Union]

Infrastructure is falling into disrepair because of the government. The government is in charge of repairs now and they aren't doing it.

And NO government will help with repairs, how?

The people are the ones actually doing the repairs, not the state.

[Relikai]

And NO government will help with repairs, how?

The people are the ones actually doing the repairs, not the state.

Oh sweet summer child.

Such a precious response.

[Floofybit]

Freedom rises with good behaviour. Bad behaviour results in poor consequences and limits your opportunities. You're free to choose your choice, but not your consequences.

[The Vooperian Union]

Freedom rises with good behaviour. Bad behaviour results in poor consequences and limits your opportunities. You're free to choose your choice, but not your consequences.

Then it’s not freedom.

[The Xylvannian Empire]

Safety matters more.

What does safety matter if you are oppressed by the state? If you can't go about your life without intervention from the government?

If I'm assuming right, having the right to bear arms is a part of safety to defend yourself and loved ones from potential perpetrators. It doesn't always have to jump to China-tier oppression.

[Trollgaard]

Society today is too concerned about safety.

Freedom is more important.

[Rary]

Society today is too concerned about safety.

Freedom is more important.

A free society without safety is a dangerous combination.

[Relikai]

Those who are able to parrot freedom probably are privileged enough to live in higher safety than others anyway.

The world is too safe for them, that's why they need some 'thrill' and freedom to commit crimes in their life.

[The Second Order of Life]

To quote makhnov himself, "Power breeds parasites. Long live anarchy!"

Has Makhno ever discussed how does the resolution of conflicts of interests works under an anarchic society? I'm not talking about laws, codes enforced by a State, I'm talking about the resolution of the Civil Law conception of lide, a conflict between what distinct parties want, without any means of agreement or self-regulation among them. If two parts of any exchange do not agree on how to settle an issue, what authority can do so? Pure popular authority, the consensual agreement of the commune? That opens up a path to unmitigated minority suppression. Unless you wish to condition a post-capitalist society to a cultural revolution beforehand that completely rids society of any and all forms of personal and cultural prejudice.

It is harder to enforce justice when it must be done at such a communal level - if an insular community wishes ill against a certain group, without there being a presence of any greater organisation or level of legal hierarchy - their consent to harm that group makes Law. Legal predictability is a given.

[The Grand Fifth Imperium]

freedom without safety= insanity
safety without freedom= tyrannical nanny state

It doesn't take a genius (although I am a genius) to tell you that the ideal ("ideal" being a necessarily vague term that varies from case to case) condition falls somewhere in between the two. I'm of the opinion that it is better to lean more towards freedom than safety, as if the government (who hypothetically controls everyone and everything in the name of "safety") messes up, pretty much everyone is screwed. If you mess up... not my problem that's your own fault.

Also, as pointed out previously, humans are inherently selfish. The same can be said of any organization (e.g. the government, corporations, etc.), which is ultimately comprised of humans acting in the interests of their group, and thus their own personal interests. If the government is given all power in the name of "safety", ultimately the safety of the government will take first precedence over the safety of those it claims to protect. Likewise, if all power is taken from the government in the name of "freedom", ultimately people's individual selfishness will place their interests before the interests of the general welfare.

Therefore, we can deduce that "safety" should check and balance "freedom", and vice versa. Too much "safety" leads to tyrannical oppression in which the government runs roughshod over everyone and anyone who stands against the "safety and security", too much "freedom" leads to lawless chaos in which anyone can do anything they want... at the expense of others. The ideal would be a government, accountable to the people, that protects the right of the people to do as they want (pursuit of happiness as some have called it), but limits them from causing harm to one another. The people, each concerned individually for their own well being (and often that of their "group", which could be a family, their friends, a religious group, community, etc.) should control the government, which is only concerned for its own wellbeing, and thus those that comprise it, which in a democratic nation should be the people as a whole. So, I feel like I'm running in circles here, but does anyone else get what I'm saying?

[The Vooperian Union]

freedom without safety= insanity
safety without freedom= tyrannical nanny state

It doesn't take a genius (although I am a genius) to tell you that the ideal ("ideal" being a necessarily vague term that varies from case to case) condition falls somewhere in between the two. I'm of the opinion that it is better to lean more towards freedom than safety, as if the government (who hypothetically controls everyone and everything in the name of "safety") messes up, pretty much everyone is screwed. If you mess up... not my problem that's your own fault.

Also, as pointed out previously, humans are inherently selfish. The same can be said of any organization (e.g. the government, corporations, etc.), which is ultimately comprised of humans acting in the interests of their group, and thus their own personal interests. If the government is given all power in the name of "safety", ultimately the safety of the government will take first precedence over the safety of those it claims to protect. Likewise, if all power is taken from the government in the name of "freedom", ultimately people's individual selfishness will place their interests before the interests of the general welfare.

Therefore, we can deduce that "safety" should check and balance "freedom", and vice versa. Too much "safety" leads to tyrannical oppression in which the government runs roughshod over everyone and anyone who stands against the "safety and security", too much "freedom" leads to lawless chaos in which anyone can do anything they want... at the expense of others. The ideal would be a government, accountable to the people, that protects the right of the people to do as they want (pursuit of happiness as some have called it), but limits them from causing harm to one another. The people, each concerned individually for their own well being (and often that of their "group", which could be a family, their friends, a religious group, community, etc.) should control the government, which is only concerned for its own wellbeing, and thus those that comprise it, which in a democratic nation should be the people as a whole. So, I feel like I'm running in circles here, but does anyone else get what I'm saying?

By your argument I would be insane.

[The Grand Fifth Imperium]

and Floofy would be a tyrannical nanny
DISCLAIMER: this is a joke. Please do not take offense. If you do I apologize.