Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by Subzero | 200 responses
- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by rwt | 20 responses
- When will someone ask STUDENTS what th... latest post by rwt | 10 responses
- Who Protects Us From Them? latest post by Subzero | 5 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by Subzero | 47 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
- Thai sean 1272 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
- treeless 17 posts | member since Dec 9, 2011
- cyberworldukltd 16 posts | member since Feb 7, 2012
- thedoc 1381 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
- GDiFonzo 10 posts | member since Nov 9, 2011
Question |
|
||
|
How much of our liberty we are going to offer for our supposed security? |
| My short answer to this is: NONE | by RedSevenOne | 0 votes | 
|
| Liberty and Security | by hhuff | 0 votes |
|
| Choice instead of Control | by mbl | 0 votes |
|
 
Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: The time of that escalation, of the threat of one’s neighbour, has gone. WE have to understand, that we depends on each other, and that we should unite, to create an absolutely new universal system. We cannot lock ourselves in our own countries. Patriotism is a beautiful word. We should be patriots of our Earth, otherwise we wouldn’t survive. We cannot be so called „home patriots“and think „My house, my family is better“. It is good to be proud of your place, your country. I am proud of my country, I love it very much, and it is independent what way of errors, what times it goes through. I love my country, yet I understand that a success and happiness of people of my country depends on their possibilities to be free, develop, take part on universal human problems, because the time has come to do this, and we cannot care only about local problems. We cannot close our eyes and hide heads in the sand like ostriches. That time is in the past. For the universal safety... To sacrifice liberty for the general safety is a legitimate, but an absurd question, because our safety does not depend on how many arms or the bombs we are going to produce, because thus we are creating the big gunpowder drum, and we collect those means which would destroy our planet, our civilisation. And if it happens there would be no liberty and nothing at all what they could share. |
Abbas Beydoun: The person who asked this question must be European. This question is strongly posed in the societies where there is liberty, so security could damage liberty in these societies. In other societies where there is neither security nor liberty we do not know which worry we should have. Should we worry about liberty? Or should we worry about security? In these societies both cases cooperate with each other where people live without liberty and security. Generally in these societies it is said to people that dictatorships can guarantee the stability but without liberty. |
Alvaro Restrepo: I have already mentioned the example of my country. Democratical security is the basic idea of the actual government in my country to the costs of the individual liberty. It think that a society which is always worrying about the security has surely many owes. A society that has to barricade itself and to offer itself and to arm itself for protection is surely a society that has lost the word of quality of life. People and individuals that live constantly vigilated are people that lost completely their liberty and that are living at very low levels of quality of life and don’t have any quality of life anymore. They are societies that have to barricade themselves like for example the United States and many other societies in order to protect themselves and so they have completely lost their quality of life. |
Ana Lucy Bengochea: As part of the ancestors who were slaves in Africa this affected at the level of us in America because many of the population [inaudible] come from African ancestors. So much power which existed in Africa if we hadn´t been enslaved I think that some apects of the world had changed. But the best thing of this process of slavery that we [inaudible] us with all our races, our culture, our tradition and our costumes everything was [inaudible] by our African ancestors and for us at the level of America this was a great gift which gave us our ancestors at one hundred seven years we live and handle our own culture and our own identity which not [inaudible]. |
Andries Botha: Florian, thanks for the question. Of course this issue of the erosion if civil liberties is very much on the lips of everybody. Because as the world kind of cascades towards and into its current conflictual mode, so the high priests of security are able to sing their songs. First of all we should ask ourselves why is it that the world is so insecure at the moment. Well, the world is so insecure at the moment because certain people have made it insecure. You know, that the world is conflicted, and the world is in conflict with itself at the moment. This presents the opportunity of a particular form of government to come to the fore to offer you security, because it’s the same government that made you feel insecure in the first place. You create the [inaudible] of insecurity in order to govern with having security as your main political franchise that you sell people. So, you make them insecure and then you tell them that you will provide them with security. So, I think it’s very important for us to ask a very important question. Why is it that we are allowing ourselves to be governed in a manner that has cost the world in such a [mantle] of insecurity. That’s an important question to ask right now. |
Angaangaq Lyberth: Funny, I ask the same question every time I go to an airport. And I go to many airports, Florian. In each airport I meet how my liberty has been robbed because I need to reveal everything I have because they don’t trust me to travel what I need to travel with. So my liberty is being removed. Funny, as it is, because you and I we’re called to be civilized and educated people. But we don’t trust one another. We don’t trust each other. We don’t trust anybody any more. So how much do we need to pay for that security? We’ve become the very ones oppressed as before. We did not like the enslavement of human beings. We did not like dictatorships. We did like colonizations. We did not like the oppression. And lo and behold, because we do not trust one another we’re doing the same just like the old days. Have we advanced? Have we become more advanced in our society? I don’t think so. I mean, look at yourself. Look at yourself the way you are today. Every time you go the airport you’re questioned. Even in the United States every time you go to school you have to go through the metal detectors to see if you have a gun or a weapon. So do you have your liberty? I wonder if you and I we have liberty today. We live in a world supposedly civilized, educated, advanced society and we are so limited because we fear one another. We don’t trust one another. I wonder sometimes do we even like one another? Help me to find the answer. Thank you. |
Anthony Arnove: I will take this as a rhetorical question in the sense that really it’s a question that people around the world are asking themselves right now. And the question of how that is answered is not a question of philosophy. It’s a question of very immediate practical urgency. Will people reject the equation, which is being put forward by Tony Blair, by John Howard, by George Bush, by politicians around the world that we have to restrict our freedoms in order to have security, that we have to give more power to the states and the states are protecting us from terrorism, the states are protecting us from the dangers of [the world]. And so, I think we have to reject this equation and have to understand that the policies that are being carried out in the name of security, in fact are making the world more insecure, not more secure. For example, the US invasion of Iraq [we were] told just to make the world safer, to counter the threat, the dangers of terrorism, the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, it just made the world more dangerous, more insecure, has increased instability and violence, has driven a global arms race, as countries around the world conclude that Iraq was invaded not because that it had weapons of mass destruction, but because it did not. And so, therefore, if they want a deterrent to US power, if they want a deterrent to the world’s sole superpower, which has a stated doctrine of carrying out regime change in countries that aren’t in its interest, which believes in the doctrine of so-called preemptive strikes, which uses terrorism as an instrument of policy, and is threatening regime change in other countries, that if they want a deterrent to that sole superpower, they had better develop a military deterrent, a nuclear deterrent if possible. And so, it has made the world more dangerous, more unstable, less secure, and it’s also of course, in the process the United States of invading Iraq create more anger, more resentment in the world, which is making it more likely that people in the United States will be the targets of attack. |
|
by Anuradha Koirala | 0 votes |
|
Anuradha Mittal: I think the question here is not so much about how much of a liberty are we going to offer, but really about for how long will we continue giving away our liberty in the name of promoting security. I think it’s a matter of time when we realize that we are making ourselves more insecure by giving away our basic liberties. We are making ourselves insecure as we find in the name of promoting security, communities are being targeted, special certain races are being targeted, certain nationalities are being targeted. And by that, we are creating further divisiveness in the community in our countries that we live in. And as long as that continues to happen, we will not have security. So, if you really want to promote security, I think it is really going to be one day us recognizing that and being able to say for our security, we want our liberties back. The only way to be secure is to have our freedoms. |
Ashok Gangadean: Very interesting and provocative question. Because certainly living in the United States and realizing that our hard earned liberties. And we know that vigilance is the price of our liberties. We can’t take it for granted. We must always be vigilant and stand up for those hard earned liberties. And the question of security in times of terrorism. Where deep fears are bound and well-based, really, are the fears of terrorist act. Where leaders who want to sacrifice some of those liberties, of free speech, and free moment, and not being singled out for security searche,s that could be seen as harassment and so forth. How much of these freedoms are we willing to sacrifice for the sake of supposed security? Good question. To me again, what’s interesting in this question is the deeper question, about what is genuine security, human security? What is security? And to live in a secure world? And what is it, in terms of true liberties and true freedom? |
Audrey Kitagawa: I don't believe that we've offered our liberty for our security. I think our liberties have been taken away from us under the guise of security, under the rationale of security. But there is a danger of the loss of personal liberty under the guise of security that we must be on guard of. And we must understand that it becomes very dangerous when we create reasons for taking away personal freedoms and security. So for example, during World War II when the Japanese in the United States were interned in camps, and they didn't offer their liberty, their personal freedom for the security of the country. These were executive orders that were entered to move this class of people from Japanese ancestry into relocation camps as they were called. So the people who have been imprisoned, whether in secret prisons that President Bush has admitted to within the last few days or whether in Guantanamo Bay or -- and have not been charged, I don't think that they offered their liberty for security. Their rights have been violated, have not been honored, have not been respected. So this is a danger that we have to be aware of, the taking away of personal freedoms and liberty under the guise of security interests and concerns. We must be able to utilize and uphold the rule of law, especially at times when we are faced with grave challenges as a testament to our commitment to uphold the rule of law. |
Avi Primor: I do believe that apart from people who love adventures, that most people will do everything necessary to have security. And that they are going to do a lot, to sacrifice a lot for it. It is hard to say how much they would do for it. But I think that in the end the need for security will win. And we will always say that yes, for our security, we will give up our comfort and convenience, maybe even parts of our freedom, give up travelling and pleasures, give up a lot. I believe that this is an instinct, that people do need security and fight for their security. For people their security is of utmost importance. Thus we will give up or sacrifice a lot for our security, even if we do it unconsciously or unknowingly and would never admit it. by Avi Primor |
Benjamin Fahrer: Our liberty. Liberty and justice for all. How much of this are we going to sacrifice for security. Department of Homeland Security in the states, and a different things that have been sacrificed in order for the security is huge, huge. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice. We shouldn’t have to offer this liberty for security. It’s more of a control of a culture of a people, taking away their liberty, controlling them for security. Now, I’m saying supposed security has the good one, that’s the crux of it, because it is not a true security. Why we offering up our liberty for something that is not for certain? When our liberties are for certain? To know how to grow your own food; to grow your own food that should be something that shouldn’t be a security issue and yet the Homeland Security comes in, in a midnight raid against a direct action to save the oldest community garden in California in Sacramento. They come in and arrest the gardeners. Why? Because they doing a demonstration instead of a protest against agribusiness. We need to reclaim our commons, liberty. Thank you Florian. |
postings
