The Gilded cage.

[kvnchrist]

I was just wondering what is more important in life. Security or Happiness(freedom)?

 

Since 9/11 I've heard people argue, back and forth about this subject and I was wondering what people think about the governments ability to ensure our security and at the same time secure our freedoms.

[HeyYou]

I was just wondering what is more important in life. Security or Happiness(freedom)?

 

Since 9/11 I've heard people argue, back and forth about this subject and I was wondering what people think about the governments ability to ensure our security and at the same time secure our freedoms.

 

You can't have both. You can have a balance of both, but, you can't have real freedom, and still be "safe". (by the governments definition)

 

Once could argue that we aren't any safer since the changes made after 9/11 as well, but, we are certainly less free.

[marharth]

Once could argue that we aren't any safer since the changes made after 9/11 as well, but, we are certainly less free.

This.

 

If anyone wanted to, they could bomb a port and kill thousands of American citizens. Hell they could use a car bomb on a building.

 

It might be a surprise to some people, but planes are not the only way to kill a lot of people.

[kvnchrist]

I was just wondering what is more important in life. Security or Happiness(freedom)?

 

Since 9/11 I've heard people argue, back and forth about this subject and I was wondering what people think about the governments ability to ensure our security and at the same time secure our freedoms.

 

You can't have both. You can have a balance of both, but, you can't have real freedom, and still be "safe". (by the governments definition)

 

Once could argue that we aren't any safer since the changes made after 9/11 as well, but, we are certainly less free.

 

 

The thing that bothers me is that the government is trying to be as politically correct as possible, while trying to protect us. I think they are more interested in protecting their cushy little job, than anything else. To my understanding, that degrade their effectiveness and makes them a danger to common sense. .

[Flintlockecole]

Once could argue that we aren't any safer since the changes made after 9/11 as well, but, we are certainly less free.

This.

 

If anyone wanted to, they could bomb a port and kill thousands of American citizens. Hell they could use a car bomb on a building.

 

It might be a surprise to some people, but planes are not the only way to kill a lot of people.

An easier way would be Gas. Can't defend against that in any way shape or form.

[marharth]

Once could argue that we aren't any safer since the changes made after 9/11 as well, but, we are certainly less free.

This.

 

If anyone wanted to, they could bomb a port and kill thousands of American citizens. Hell they could use a car bomb on a building.

 

It might be a surprise to some people, but planes are not the only way to kill a lot of people.

An easier way would be Gas. Can't defend against that in any way shape or form.

Well we could discuss a number of methods to kill a lot of people, you get my point though.

[Aonghus]

To my mind, Franklin made the best statement on this topic more than 200 years ago: "Those willing to sacrifice liberty for temporary safety are deserving of neither."

[bben46]

Any discussion on methods or techniques for killing will earn you an instant ban here. Also, this topic is not about that at all. So please be careful when discussing subjects that may lead to this. And stay on topic. :thumbsup:

Bben46, Moderator

[marharth]

Any discussion on methods or techniques for killing will earn you an instant ban here. Also, this topic is not about that at all. So please be careful when discussing subjects that may lead to this. And stay on topic. :thumbsup:

Bben46, Moderator

Sorry about that.

 

I don't think I have answered the OP completely. I think it is important to have a careful balance. If everyone has too much freedom it is a threat to security. If everyone has too much security it is a threat to freedom.

Edited September 21, 2011 by marharth

[Deleted472477User]

the way we are wired is that some people naturally look for danger, and others look for pain and ways to alleviate it, thereby creating happiness. One thing I read said this also applies to the US's two political parties. Conservatives are more motivated by protecting themselves, their families, and innocents as a whole from danger, be it terrorists, criminals (a possible reason they are more gun and death penalty positive than liberals) or threats to the status quo. Change is scary, and scary can be dangerous.

 

Liberals it went on to say are more motivated by pain, not by causing it, but by alleviating it, and making others happy. So you have us blue sorts wanting poor people to have what they need, old folks to get their social security, health care for everyone, and guns and war are bad because they hurt people.

 

Okay, so this is a simplification of things. I'll post a link to the original post and you can decide for yourselves. It's tl;dr but well worth it. I'm also not saying I wholly believe this is 'trufax 100%!!!!!11111' just that it's interesting.

 

http://www.prettyfedup.com/pfu/corporationssocietycurrentevents/liberals&conservatives.htm

 

And to answer your question, kvchrist, this is why we can't have nice things (happy): someone is always out there to mess it all up (danger).

 

My more serious answer is, yes we can. It helps if you learn to overlook the annoyances caused by our governments efforts to keep us safe. As an example, I think airport security is reaching stupid levels overall, but I go along with it knowing I'm doing something that makes me happier overall.