"Those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither."dls6774 said:Wasn't it one of our founding fathers that said anyone who would give up some freedom for security deserved neither freedom nor security? Or words to that effect?
solsticeman said:How do you convince someone they need security? You convince them they have something to fear. Whether that risk/fear is real is arbitrary - if you can convince them to give up a bit of freedom for this "added security", you have the opportunity to chip at the bedrock of everything our forefathers have fought for. This goes for convincing everyone of the threat of terrorism, or the impurity and contamination of a particular race.
Read the whole text when you get a chance, it is amazing and could be juxtaposed into today's worl happenings.Patrick Henry said:It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Furthermore, where is the "edge"? When have you gone too far? When have you gone from "defending the homeland (fatherland?)", to a police state? Can anyone define it?PAS22 said:Precisely! Go to far, and you have NATZ Germany all over again.
I'll run you off the road first because you look like you want to run me off the road. :brentil:PAS22 said:The Romans waged war on their neighbors on the pretense of security. Attack them, becasue they might some day attack you. Sound familiar? Of course, we all know what eventually happened to the Empire.
That reminds me of first class in driver's ed. Driving is not a right it's a privilege, that can be as easily granted as it can be taken away.solsticeman said:I do find it funny that people think animals and children have "rights". "Rights" are only possible when there is "responsibility". We do have a responsibility to "respect" children and animals, but they are not responsible enough to have true "rights".
For me, this talks about the need to balance the pursuit of freedoms with the security of government, which is and should be a continually ongoing process. This is why the US Constitution was written as it was, to enable us as a country to change our government as needed.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.