Which is more important to you.

Your Freedoms and Human Rights? or the Security which suposedly "protects" them

I was inspired to poll this question from watching the democratic debate.

Mr. Blitzer asked this question to the democratic canidates.

If having less "security" enables me to have more freedom and better human rights, then I'll take the risk.


I dont think we all should live in a glass bubble protected from the world, life is risky

without freedom security is meaningless

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. The right to live your live unmolested by people who want to remove your basic human rights is itself a basic human right.

The conflict tends to come when people advocate removing rights from one group[ of people on the pretext that this will increase "security" for some other group.

Isn't security one of the human rights ?

Security...unless it takes away from human rights.

Its really an unfair question for a debate since it doesnt allow for a middle ground.

Isn't security one of the human rights ?

Well, I guess we need to define both security and human rights.......

Human Rights - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Security - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security

Lets not confuse the two......the "Patriot Act" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

is a good example of how Security and Human Rights can be totaly different.

At what point does security of human rights actually "violate" human rights?

IMHO The logic the U.S (specificly) is putting behind "National Security" is bass ackwards.....It's like they want to put you in a metal cage so no one can kill you or violate your "human rights" however being safe in that cage itself......is ridding you of those same rights.......doesn't make sense IMO

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."
Benjamin Franklin


I voted "human rights" as security can only safe guard those rights to a limit (very small limit) before that security itself becomes a threat to the rights its parades around trying to protect.

Risk takers don't live very long......but the cautious never live at all.

freedom

freedom


draqon = new william wallace? You need to put more oomf into it....


like so:
FREEDOM!!!!

no need to paint your face and wear a kilt tho.....

Well, I guess we need to define both security and human rights.......

Human Rights - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Security - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security

Lets not confuse the two......the "Patriot Act" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

is a good example of how Security and Human Rights can be totaly different.

At what point does security of human rights actually "violate" human rights?

IMHO The logic the U.S (specificly) is putting behind "National Security" is bass ackwards.....It's like they want to put you in a metal cage so no one can kill you or violate your "human rights" however being safe in that cage itself......is ridding you of those same rights.......doesn't make sense IMO

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."
Benjamin Franklin


I voted "human rights" as security can only safe guard those rights to a limit (very small limit) before that security itself becomes a threat to the rights its parades around trying to protect.

Risk takers don't live very long......but the cautious never live at all.

You are talking about security of the homeland or whatever, I'm talking about the security of the individual. Of course your definition of security can be conflicting with individual rights of people, mine doesn't..

You are talking about security of the homeland or whatever, I'm talking about the security of the individual. Of course your definition of security can be conflicting with individual rights of people, mine doesn't..


Fair enough.....

but isn't the homeland made up of individuals?

I guess where I went wrong is not specifying which type of security......the security as defined by the individual.......or the security as defined by the government.

I assumed government, as well......thats what most of us live under.

Fair enough.....

but isn't the homeland made up of individuals?

I guess where I went wrong is not specifying which type of security......the security as defined by the individual.......or the security as defined by the government.

I assumed government, as well......thats what most of us live under.

Hmm ok, I guess I assumed you meant security of the individual because the rights are of the individual.

Freedom, Individual security can be improved by the changing of certain habits. (if there a war on, go buy a rifle.) I'm sure you'll find plenty in the USA.

Remember that human beings are part of nature, a point brought home when we stop to consider whether or not we should limit people's rights in order to secure them against nature. After all, Congress could pass legislation requiring that all new structures built be secure against lightning strikes, so that nobody inside could be struck by lightning. (Every year, a few people are struck by lightning while indoors.) In a further effort to protect us from lightning, Congress might pass a curfew stating that people are required to be indoors (in lightning-proof buildings) if NOAA determines a greater than 10% chance of lightning in any given locale.

It's a matter of natural security. We won't let nature terrorize us. That's why Congress should instruct you to cower in terror inside your lightning-proof home. It's worth the trade-off. At least you won't be struck by lightning. And what are a few freedoms compared to your life?

Don't be anti-American. Write your Congressional delegation in support of lightning-strike reduction legislation.

Remember that human beings are part of nature, a point brought home when we stop to consider whether or not we should limit people's rights in order to secure them against nature. After all, Congress could pass legislation requiring that all new structures built be secure against lightning strikes, so that nobody inside could be struck by lightning. (Every year, a few people are struck by lightning while indoors.) In a further effort to protect us from lightning, Congress might pass a curfew stating that people are required to be indoors (in lightning-proof buildings) if NOAA determines a greater than 10% chance of lightning in any given locale.

It's a matter of natural security. We won't let nature terrorize us. That's why Congress should instruct you to cower in terror inside your lightning-proof home. It's worth the trade-off. At least you won't be struck by lightning. And what are a few freedoms compared to your life?

Don't be anti-American. Write your Congressional delegation in support of lightning-strike reduction legislation.

LOL! exactly