Personal Liberty v. Safety

Post Reply New Topic

I have debated this in several threads with people who think the "good of the public" is more important than freedom of choice.

I ask, can we have safety without freedom? Does freedom promote safety?

I think I should remind everyone the NDAA was passed for our safety, and the TSA searches you at the airport for your safety.

I'd rather have my liberty and take my chances with safety.

As Ben Franklin wrote:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

second that

I would only err on the side of safety when it concerns someone else' safety.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'm of the opinion that one person's safety outweighs another's liberty. If we were to put liberty above safety, we could get completely legless and drive a car, without fear of punishment. There are very good reasons for society saying that we can't be allowed to just do as we please.

I don't think freedom and safety conflict much. Freedom necessarily limits itself by the requirement that everyone needs to have that freedom or it's not freedom. Allowing street races would remove the freedom of other people to choice to go outside (the choice is not free given that the risk of getting injured coerces them to stay inside).

Really, being free to do various things without a high risk of harm (ie safely) is a main reason people lived in groups and later societies that weren't based solely on the law of the jungle. Safety is a freedom, conflict only occurs far down the line when there are too many variables to accurately weigh different freedoms against each other.

i would choose liberty.what good is a life with no freedom.we could all live inside a protective caccoon where nothing could ever hurt us but.what life would be

Do you think my freedom of choice to kill you should be more important then your wish for a safe living of your own? ^^

How 'bout we apply some common sense.

Are you meaning that a line has to be drawn somewhere? In a world where personal freedom takes precedence over safety, where would that line be drawn? If we're expecting the 'free' indiduals to use their common sense, then what about those who are lacking in that very virtue. I go back to my previous post about driving whilst drunk. Common sense might dictate that it's best not to have anything to drink before driving (or a small amount at most), but another person's 'common sense' might say it's fine to have three pints or more.

There's a problem:

nothing can make you safe; the threat of death comes with life

Some things can increase the odds and all that, but in the end, it all still falls in that area of, "you can't stop the train from hitting you when you stand on the tracks".

The majority of it all is "feel good", and any statistical benefits won't actually affect you based on odds and how small they really are.

So the better question is, do you prefer "feel good" or freedom?

I know where I fall out of those two.

Idiots still drink and drive. Idiots still drive when tired. Idiots still kill people.

Aside from measures like the TSA has there been more serious thought into security the cockpit of the planes? Or letting the pilots have some kind of weapons?

I think we can have smart security measures and find better solutions than the TSA which feels like an inefficient dragnet.

I was trying to figure out how to respond earlier, but couldn't get the wording right. Dillogic nailed it. Safety is mostly a statement of feeling.

Really, risk assessment is a personal responsibility. I don't want someone else telling me what risks I can and cannot take. If you're doing something that puts me at an unacceptable risk, I'll get away from you. It's not my right or responsibility to tell you to stop unless you are physically damaging me or my property.

The police state is not being built for the safety of ordinary people, it's built to expand the power of the elite.

Your argument is flawed. Complete safety from harm is of course impossible but that doesn't mean that all safety measures are useless and might as well be left out; they still make it safer than not having them. Statistical benefits of single safety measures are usually not noticeable, but together they do make society significantly safer. Dismissing the entire concept of safety because absolute safety is impossible is not logical.

I suspect you might feel this way because of the many "safety" measures that are either taken as token measures after some rare accident no amount of safety measures could prevent, or because of the measures that pose as safety measures but really only serve to strengthen the hold on power of an elite. They exist and they are useless or even harmful, but that doesn't mean that safety itself doesn't exist.