What do the people want?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

In the "democratic" nations of the world there is an idea that what the majority wants the people should get. I suggest a referendum which could be issued to find out what the people want. It could be a simple "Which is better?" format without examples.

I would include:

Freedom v Security
Freedom v Equality
Freedom v High Standard of Living

Why Freedom v X? Different freedoms are effected by any changes in the laws to increase any of the comparative ideas. For example, a right to privacy falls under freedom v security, security meaning we should sacrifice privacy to be secure.

Perhaps the poll I have made is a simpler means of doing this, but it's accurate enough.

Is freedom of enough value to justify suffering? After you answer for you, please post what you think a majority of people would think and why.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

For the record, I voted yes, personally. I bet the majority of people would say yes as well, but I doubt that they truly believe it. The "acceptable" answer is yes, of course. However, if being required to carry a tracking device eliminated 90% of all crime, would the answer be the same?

Most laws are made in reference to specific instances and applied to all similar instances, as I see it. If we legislate a bit less freedom in the name of, say, protecting "innocent people" from viewing "psychologically harmful" materials, aren't we eviscerating a freedom many swear by?

Is a balance truly achievable, or should we just go ahead and accept that we want to be taken care of by our government, regardless of cost to "freedom"? I wonder.

[mikenostic]

I voted yes as well. Remember the quote, Freedom isn't Free. And unfortunately, due to the alpha dominance control complex and greed that too many people have, it will always be like that.
Think of it like a computer and virus protection. They slow your computer down and hog up resources and memory, but they protect you from all the viruses and spyware that social degenerates create.

[hypewaders]

"Is freedom of enough value to justify suffering?"

It depends on a wide spectrum of context that the question neglects. What the question most clearly articulates is a popular contemporary fallacy: It is often repeated that "freedom isn't free", which is a veiled suggestion that to make a freedom omelet, we've got to break a few heads.

Obviously, people who are suffering desire freedom. Oppressed people want freedom from suffering, and want their freedom in general. Challenging and overthrowing oppressors does require personal risk and even sacrifice. But that doesn't mean that suffering is the price or currency of freedom. This suggestion is a propaganda construct, intended to confound morality and dissent. It's been very effective lately in the USA, as our foreign policy has brought much suffering (but scant freedom) purportedly in freedom's cause.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I disagree. Freedom, as suggested here, is a political creature. The freedom to choose to have the white wine versus the red wine is not what is being discussed.

Let me give an example. In the US, the ability to own firearms is considered a "freedom". However, in allowing some firearms to be legal, the simple ownership of a firearm is not enough to get the attention of law enforcement, and thus illegal weapons and firearm related crime are much higher here than where this "freedom" is not allowed.

However, is the removal of that freedom, and thus making the ownership of a firearm illegal, and thus only criminals have guns, of enough value that the citizens' freedom to defend themselves from attack is reduced, and fear/suffering increases?

I know, it's just one example. Let me offer a rephrasing of the question. Should freedom be reduced so that the government might protect the citizens better? In protecting the citizens, I do also mean "from themselves" as well.

[cosmictraveler]

All I ever strive for is piece of mind.:)

[Enmos]

All I ever strive for is piece of mind.:)

http://www.savioursofrock.com/reviews/images/Iron_Maiden_-_Piece_Of_Mind.jpg

[cosmictraveler]

Oh gee, thanks, now I'll have that image burned into me for the next 24 hours! :rolleyes:

[Enmos]

Oh gee, thanks, now I'll have that image burned into me for the next 24 hours! :rolleyes:

lol
You did say 'piece of mind'... :D

[Norsefire]

VI why did you vote yes? It is obvious from your posts that you value security above freedom (see the taxation posts)

I vote for freedom absolutely.

[cosmictraveler]

lol
You did say 'piece of mind'... :D

My bad, peace then, now take that horrible image away! :D

[visceral_instinct]

VI why did you vote yes? It is obvious from your posts that you value security above freedom (see the taxation posts)

I vote for freedom absolutely.

Security is a large part of freedom.

The fact that you can report a crime to the police and be protected is an aspect of freedom.

The fact that you have the right to walk down the street without being harassed or assaulted,and that you can call the police if anyone does harass or assault you, is an aspect of freedom.

The fact that you can get public health care (in some countries) if you need it, though you do pay a tax on it, is an aspect of freedom.

[Norsefire]

Security is a large part of freedom. Absolutely. When it is provided and received voluntarily.

The fact that you can get public health care (in some countries) if you need it, though you do pay a tax on it, is an aspect of freedom.

No, it isn't. That (taxation) is a violation of freedom. Security and charity are aspects of freedom...when they are voluntary. However, theft is not an aspect of freedom. It is involuntary and forced (thus, theft) and the gov't doesn't ever ask if you even want what it provides. It simply charges you and forces you to take it.

This is like me forcing a candy bar down your throat and then demanding payment; and that isn't freedom at all.

[visceral_instinct]

Norse: How would it be if you were too poor to afford healthcare and couldn't get it because, unlike in the terrible theft state you're denouncing, healthcare is private and you can't get any?

[Enmos]

Norse: How would it be if you were too poor to afford healthcare and couldn't get it because, unlike in the terrible theft state you're denouncing, healthcare is private and you can't get any?

Don't expect an honest answer to that one..

[Challenger78]

No, Not freedom. We never truly were free.
Also, A large majority of cries for freedom were also linked with economic independency.

I always thought freedom was a roundabout cry to say you're too proud to ask for help.

[Norsefire]

Norse: How would it be if you were too poor to afford healthcare and couldn't get it because, unlike in the terrible theft state you're denouncing, healthcare is private and you can't get any?

I don't get what your point is here. I wouldn't like it at all...but where does theft get justified? Can I point a gun to your head and take your money to pay for my surgery? No.