Re: Strange Question for ACists and libertarians
 

I usually stand up out of respect and I don't want to piss people off (games are supposed to be fun). But I use one hand to grasp my crotch and use the other hand to comb back my hair.

Re: Strange Question for ACists and libertarians
 

[ QUOTE ]
Var,

[ QUOTE ]
please keep in mind that security is not a synonym for freedom.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any connection between the two, is there any reason to assume that freedom needs security (or protection).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, certainly. When Israel launches a pre-emptive strike on the surrounding nations that are preparing to wipe it off the map in the immediate future, it would be fair for them to characterize the attack as a defense of their freedom, since they will surely be less free if their opponents succeed in their objective. Are we inherently less free, however, if terrorist attacks are somewhat more likely? I certainly don't see how (even aside from the fact that the Iraq War was so much more likely to increase the frequency of terrorist attacks than to decrease them).

This is a pet peeve of mine. There has traditionally been a debate about the proper balance between security and freedom, and it's an important one to have as both concerns are legitimate, yet are frequently in opposition to each other. The Bush administration, however, has done what it can to sidestep that debate by employing rhetorical slight-of-hand: they characterize their efforts to protect the country from physical harm as "protecting our freedom." It's a really nasty trick, IMO.

Re: Strange Question for ACists and libertarians
 

[ QUOTE ]
Var,

[ QUOTE ]
please keep in mind that security is not a synonym for freedom.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any connection between the two, is there any reason to assume that freedom needs security (or protection).

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
Government is the negation of freedom. You could make an argument that government (particularly one that is limited) is around to protect freedom. To paraphrase Jefferson "Taxes are the property spent on securing the remainder". This could easily be changed to say "the freedom you lose from government security is spent on securing the remainder".

You'll notice that I applied the government to security. Because when I spend money buying locks for my doors, or a safe in my home, or an insurance policy against theft, or life insurance, or a guard dog, or a policy with a security company it's a voluntary decision that doesn't require unathorized delegations of my freedom. I have both freedom and security.

I guess you could argue that government is the only means for providing security, but that's a whole different debate.

Re: Strange Question for ACists and libertarians
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Var,

[ QUOTE ]
please keep in mind that security is not a synonym for freedom.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any connection between the two, is there any reason to assume that freedom needs security (or protection).

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]
Government is the negation of freedom. You could make an argument that government (particularly one that is limited) is around to protect freedom. To paraphrase Jefferson "Taxes are the property spent on securing the remainder". This could easily be changed to say "the freedom you lose from government security is spent on securing the remainder".

You'll notice that I applied the government to security. Because when I spend money buying locks for my doors, or a safe in my home, or an insurance policy against theft, or life insurance, or a guard dog, or a policy with a security company it's a voluntary decision that doesn't require unathorized delegations of my freedom. I have both freedom and security.

I guess you could argue that government is the only means for providing security, but that's a whole different debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Var, I'm just quoting Shakes post for ease of use.

The answer, obviously, is yes they're linked. Your (and my) freedoms only extend so long as we can protect them. If we allow another power to gather power to the point where they'd threaten our freedom, then we're justified in protecting ourselves. The qualifier here is that they must be a threat, the USSR was, the UK is not (the difference should be obvious).

The questions that pop up about "was Korea/Vietnam" justified always seem a little silly, almost as if the poster doesn't understand global politics (and one of my big beefs with AC). We don't get to live in isolation anymore. With the onset of the information age we're a global community more than ever, and we'd (and any people worldwide) would do well to remember that fact.

Cody