3 ms·

"If you have zero physical security, that means that anyone can come up and just knock you down and take your things, your woman, whatever... Not my idea of "fr

by jetti 13y ago

"If you have zero physical security, that means that anyone can come up and just knock you down and take your things, your woman, whatever... Not my idea of "freedom"." But that happens now. All the examples that are being given on why we need security are examples of things that are happening now WITH security. "I think that it follows that you do need some security in order to live a free life. Does that justify secret government spying programs? Probably not!" My problem is that this security is just a false sense of security. With all of the restrictions and all of the money poured into the DHS and other counter-intelligence, we still get things like Boston. I wish people would realize that bad things happen, and giving your rights away isn't going to stop them from happening. "Except for minorities (at least for some things, like, say, being able to vote in Alabama), gays, people who consume marijuana in Washington and Colorado, and various others who have gained rights recently. It's not black and white." They haven't gained anything. Nothing is stopping the feds from swooping down and arresting these individuals. They are still breaking a federal law. Also, in reference to the gay marriage thing, I feel it is kind of low to say they are gaining rights as there was no real legal reason (that I could think of) to prevent them from being able to marry.

davidw 13y ago
> But that happens now. Obviously. It's impossible to eliminate bad things completely. They would happen more without anyone providing security. > They haven't gained anything Ok, fine, whatever, the world is moving only in one direction, with no nuance, no complexities, and in a very simple, easy to understand way. Nothing has gotten better for anyone.
- jetti 13y ago
  "Obviously. It's impossible to eliminate bad things completely. They would happen more without anyone providing security." To me, this argument is based on how one views human nature. Personally, I don't believe that the majority of people want to commit serious crimes but are only held back by the fact that if they did, they would be punished. Because of that belief, I don't believe that eliminating security would cause an increase of bad behavior. "Ok, fine, whatever, the world is moving only in one direction, with no nuance, no complexities, and in a very simple, easy to understand way. Nothing has gotten better for anyone." I probably should have phrased my response better but at the time was stuck in a better way to do so. Surely there are places that have improved in people's lives but it isn't like those same improvements couldn't or wouldn't have been made without a state providing security.
  - rtpg 13y ago
    >I don't believe that the majority of people want to commit serious crimes but are only held back by the fact that if they did, they would be punished. What is your definition of serious? Sure, most people don't want to kill others, but what about non-violent crimes. What about fraud? Not paying taxes? Although you might argue that taxes are usurping our freedom somehow, I like having infrastructure.
    - jetti 13y ago
      While I haven't truly thought about it much, I guess my definition of serious would coincide with what government calls a felony. "What about fraud? Not paying taxes?" Maybe I'm just naive but I don't think the average person walks around conspiring to commit fraud but is discouraged by the fact they could go to jail if caught. As for the taxes issue, in this scenario, taxes would most likely decrease since there would be no big security machine (DoD, DHS, NSA, FBI, CIA) to feed, or at least budgets would be slashed. On top of that, there could be systems put into place that automate the taxes and make the current way of doing taxes a thing of the past. The lower taxes and the automated system could make it easy to pay taxes as well as harder to avoid paying taxes.
  - varjag 13y ago
    > Personally, I don't believe that the majority of people want to commit serious crimes but are only held back by the fact that if they did, they would be punished. Because of that belief, I don't believe that eliminating security would cause an increase of bad behavior. You don't need "majority", you need just a handful of really really bad ones.
    - jetti 13y ago
      But the current system, with all of the "security" it provides, already has a handful of really really bad people that commit crimes. So why should I give up freedoms to try and stop these bad people when despite everything, crime still happens?
      - 13y ago

by jetti 13y ago

davidw 13y ago

> But that happens now. Obviously. It's impossible to eliminate bad things completely. They would happen more without anyone providing security. > They haven't gained anything Ok, fine, whatever, the world is moving only in one direction, with no nuance, no complexities, and in a very simple, easy to understand way. Nothing has gotten better for anyone.

jetti 13y ago
"Obviously. It's impossible to eliminate bad things completely. They would happen more without anyone providing security." To me, this argument is based on how one views human nature. Personally, I don't believe that the majority of people want to commit serious crimes but are only held back by the fact that if they did, they would be punished. Because of that belief, I don't believe that eliminating security would cause an increase of bad behavior. "Ok, fine, whatever, the world is moving only in one direction, with no nuance, no complexities, and in a very simple, easy to understand way. Nothing has gotten better for anyone." I probably should have phrased my response better but at the time was stuck in a better way to do so. Surely there are places that have improved in people's lives but it isn't like those same improvements couldn't or wouldn't have been made without a state providing security.
- rtpg 13y ago
  >I don't believe that the majority of people want to commit serious crimes but are only held back by the fact that if they did, they would be punished. What is your definition of serious? Sure, most people don't want to kill others, but what about non-violent crimes. What about fraud? Not paying taxes? Although you might argue that taxes are usurping our freedom somehow, I like having infrastructure.
  - jetti 13y ago
    While I haven't truly thought about it much, I guess my definition of serious would coincide with what government calls a felony. "What about fraud? Not paying taxes?" Maybe I'm just naive but I don't think the average person walks around conspiring to commit fraud but is discouraged by the fact they could go to jail if caught. As for the taxes issue, in this scenario, taxes would most likely decrease since there would be no big security machine (DoD, DHS, NSA, FBI, CIA) to feed, or at least budgets would be slashed. On top of that, there could be systems put into place that automate the taxes and make the current way of doing taxes a thing of the past. The lower taxes and the automated system could make it easy to pay taxes as well as harder to avoid paying taxes.
- varjag 13y ago
  > Personally, I don't believe that the majority of people want to commit serious crimes but are only held back by the fact that if they did, they would be punished. Because of that belief, I don't believe that eliminating security would cause an increase of bad behavior. You don't need "majority", you need just a handful of really really bad ones.
  - jetti 13y ago
    But the current system, with all of the "security" it provides, already has a handful of really really bad people that commit crimes. So why should I give up freedoms to try and stop these bad people when despite everything, crime still happens?
    - 13y ago