Security over Freedom?

18-12-2018, 05:48 PM

Lukecetion Wrote: Freedom is when someone tells you to stop and you can tell them; "No". If someone tells you to stop something, and you comply despite the fact that you don't want to stop, then you have effectively surrendered your own freedom in trade for the perks that offer. If you want to live within a system that has a set of rules to benefit from the perks that comes with that, you have given off your freedom for the time being. Though true freedom, as I stated is to have the option to say "no" even within such a system. No one is stopping you from going out into a unoccupied piece of land and building yourself a house and living off the land.

Though you can't get both sides. You can't have utter complete freedom and isolation from a system and still benefit from the perks of said system. You are never forced into a system, you are always given the option to follow that system every single day and that is true freedom as far as I can see. It is logical in the same sense people see it as logical to behave when they are visiting someone else's house. You play by their rules at that time, not your own. That would be a system in which you trade your normal behavior in for the perks and benefits of being in that "someone's" house for a limited time.

That is what people utterly fail to see when they talk about "freedom" in the sense of anarchy. They believe that a lack of system is freedom, yet forgetting that by nature, us humans abide by a system that we refer to as the "laws of nature" and the concept of continuity. Freedom is to have the option to chose, not the lack of options.

---

No, being an honest individual who says they'd gladly give up privacy for the perks and benefits that gets them. Instead of being someone who is a hypocrite and states that they would never do that, yet are currently exploiting the perks and benefits of doing exactly that.

There are various definitions for freedom. I use it in a sense of, freedom to do anything without restrictions.

Your definition of freedom takes it to another step of, even though there are restrictions and perks to surrendering freedom, do it anyways because they can't take away your mental freedom. Because if you give into the system, you're no longer free, mentally.

But like I said before. Realistically, with me wanting to walk outside naked with bananas taped to my body, I'd probably be detained, jailed, or shot. By my definition, there isn't freedom if there are restrictions. This isn't a mentaility issue. However, it could be, if you use the definition of freedom as a state of mind. Because if you go to jail, you'll still have physical freedom?

we need security over freedom becauser people are crazy . if we could all get along we could have all the freedom in the world

why are you posting so many questions................?

18-12-2018, 06:07 PM

Bubble Wrote: There are various definitions for freedom. I use it in a sense of, freedom to do anything without restrictions.

Your definition of freedom takes it to another step of, even though there are restrictions and perks to surrendering freedom, do it anyways because they can't take away your mental freedom. Because if you give into the system, you're no longer free, mentally.

But like I said before. Realistically, with me wanting to walk outside naked with bananas taped to my body, I'd probably be detained, jailed, or shot. By my definition, there isn't freedom if there are restrictions. This isn't a mentaility issue. However, it could be, if you use the definition of freedom as a state of mind. Because if you go to jail, you'll still have physical freedom?

Of course there are various definitions, people aren't objective by nature. That being said, people define the world around them by whats important to them. To some a mental freedom is far more valuable than a physical one, hence they don't care too much about their physical location in the world. Though the majority can agree that being in prison doesn't seem like fun, so let us work with that idea in mind. What I said about following a system to benefit from it is still accurate to all forms of freedom. Even if you give into a system for your own ends then that doesn't mean you are entirely surrendering your own freedom. Freedom lies in the choice and as long as you can keep on making choices, then you are free. Today you can decide to follow the system, tomorrow you can decide to not do that, you can change your direction because you are free to do so in a free country. You are free to break the any laws you want, any rules you want and any order you are given is yours to choose to follow or not.

That is freedom and this is something the majority agrees on. You are living in a world where there are preset laws and rules in play for different reasons. You chose to abide by those because you want what you get out of doing so. If you didn't want that, then you wouldn't follow those rules. This is the reason we end up having revolutions and wars. People at some point decide that the "rewards and perks" are no longer worth following a system and then chose their new path using the tool "freedom" in order to start to change or destroy a system. They were free from the start and they are still free. If they hadn't been free then a revolution and/or change would never have occurred in the first place. It can only occur because people possess a will of their own, a free mind that can think for itself. Thus as long as you possess that you have effectively achieved all forms of freedom you ever need.

If you chose to pay for something, it is your choice. If you choose to not pay for something, that choice is yours as well. Only if the mind of humans are taken from them will they ever be enslaved in all forms. We also have two forms of people who try to "use" this concept in their own ways. The first are those who will meet injustice and power peacefully, like Ghandi who believed that change shouldn't come through war and blood, but rather peace and the freedom to chose. Ghandi believed that freedom is something we all possesses and if we want to change something, all we have to do is use that freedom. Then we have the other side of freedom, as freedom is the right to chose what you want. Be that murdering your way to change like Hitler attempted to do, or to try and change the world through peace like Ghandi tried to do. They both achieved something in their own way, thus they both demonstrated freedom.

What Hitler tried to do was less "free" than what Ghandi tried to do as Hitler attempted to bend the rules to his own will, he tried to change it by robbing people of a choice in order to get things his way. In way Hitler tried to rob people of their freedom. This ended up backfiring and he lost before he could accomplish what he wanted and in the end he paid with his own freedom, being trapped within a system he created himself. Ghandi on the other hand didn't want nor tried to force change upon anyone, he attempted to just be who he was regardless of the system. He wanted to show people that change can be brought through the freedom we all possess. Even though Ghandi never accomplished his complete goals throughout his life and he to some ended up failing, then it is undeniable that he managed to make people think. Think about what freedom really is and what it means to you. In the end some follow his ideal and choose to avoid a system, and on the other hand someone follow Hitler's example and tries to manipulate and strong-arm the system to benefit from it.

This way of thinking is also built into most justice systems today. There is a reason why we treat a clinically insane person differently than a completely sane person in the case of murder. A sane person knows the rules of the system they had agreed upon. They knew the laws and thus the "rules of the game" and still the defied them in order to gain from it themselves. They were doing what Hitler did, they tried to strong-arm the system with their freedom in order to change something in it. People who are clinically insane don't follow the same rules, they might not be aware of the rules or they might not understand it in the same way you and I do. Because of this they might now have fully understood their actions within the system and they didn't attempt to strong-arm the system, they simply did something they wanted as if there was no system. In both cases the people exercised their freedom. The difference is that one gave up their freedom from perks and still tried to retain their freedom. They tried to trick the transaction. A way to compare it would be like trying to buy something and paying for it, only to turn around and rob the person for the money you paid.

Certain things come with a cost and when you agree to that price, you are willingly choosing it. When you live in a system you are willingly giving away your freedom in certain areas to benefit from it and that at it's very core is a choice made out of freedom, a choice you do yourself. Then notion that you have "no choice" is very rarely accurate. You have a choice and you will always choose what benefits you the most, what matters the most to you. So if walking outside naked with bananas mean a lot for, then you will do that. Though I take it that it doesn't really mean much to you at all, therefore you won't do it because what you lose in doing so means more to you, that is freedom. The opposite of this is to do what Ghandi did and understand the deal you've made and understanding that if you break that deal you are also giving up the perks. Ghandi chose this because the perks no longer mattered to him compared to the things he believed in. He chose to throw away his perks in order to save what he believed in and this is an example of freedom much like what Hitler attempted. Two drastically different people, both chose their own path in life when the system slapped them in the face, the perks where no longer worth the cost and they chose their path, albeit different from each other, they showed freedom in their choice.

Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, when you want. Freedom is choice. Freedom is the ability to say "no" and "yes". Freedom isn't the ability to live perfectly, it isn't the ability to lie and be a hypocrite. Freedom is the ability to choose what's important to you. If you live with restrictions, then you have chosen those restrictions and will you keep choosing them as long as you want. If you chose to rid yourself of them, then the perks no longer hold value to you. Of course if you go to jail you no longer possess physical freedom, but you are in jail based on the choices you made in your life (or if the system was rigged, which is possible because no system is perfect, but that is a debate for another day).If you chose to commit a crime you know is wrong and you know you will go to jail for it and you do go to jail, then that is a result of your own freedom of choice and not the lack of it.

Uff that is honestly a tough one to ask to be honest <.<

Moderation is the best policy but if I'd have to stand on one side - will choose security and safety.

I would for sure have to say freedom over security.

I also prefer freedom over security for a simple reason.
When you are free, you can provide enough level of security, but when you are secured by others you cannot be that free.

19-12-2018, 03:38 PM

Lukecetion Wrote: -snip-

I'll get back to u later. Jesus christ this is long. But I know you, this is childs play for u :sip:

I believe that it is a Human Right to be able to go anywhere on earth, we should not be restricted.