The debate "Personal freedom is more important than public security." was started by
December 20, 2015, 9:33 pm.
By the way, PsychDave is disagreeing with this statement.
31 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Freyja posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, samreen posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 3 arguments, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, mandala posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
wmd, Sosocratese, Jared_Lee, Regalgeek, david365, esoo717, Dctheentrepreneur, rob5998, samreen, Saaz7298, ProudAmerican888, futuremaster, llemponen, Max and 17 visitors agree.
PsychDave, Gandalf, swp16, ReadyToBegin, mandala, ReedMurphy, LucyTheDebatorQueen and 3 visitors disagree.
I agree with you that people should not have too much personal freedom because there's a chance of misusing it...& at the same time public security along with personal freedom is important
that doesn't make sense. most people have never killed anyone. would you care to explain what "real freedom" is?
most of the people don't know the real meaning of freedom ... some of them think that freedome is just killing people in order to get what they won't ...
some countries do not have personal freedom. So public security in those cases are more important rather. The USA will have freedom and will continue to have freedom for many years to come. Public safety is an bigger issue than personal freedom in the US. Right now the biggest issues tackle public security. Even if they were to ban all gun(which they won't and never will) a person still has their freedom and speaking of freedom. You must define personal freedom in the first place cause everyone has different perceptions regarding their own freedom and has a set of let's say values to what constitutes in their head of them being free. To me, although that comes first in the USA at least (not so much other countries) the main issues track back to what's good now for the public and recent events in the last 6 years has increased public safety issues more than ever.
Must have hit the wrong vote, fixed now.
I believe personal freedom must be the first consideration when determining safety measures. It must be weighed so heavily, that nothing short of imminent threat, the violation of another's rights, or the consensus of the populous should outweigh it. The populous may consent to screenings as their freedoms include the right to suspend certain freedoms in order to feel safe. However, it is also up to the populous to decide when the suspension of freedoms has come to an end. Bills like the Patriot act, etc.. ought to have popular vote clauses in order to allow the populous to repeal it when they no longer wish to trade security for their freedoms again.
We should also be able to know what information, screenings, etc... the government is actually conducting. We should never need an Edward Snowden to show us what the government is doing....
But that's all ideology.
As far as practical use goes, the pendulum will always try to swing back to freedoms over security. It will always require horrible events to swing the pendulum towards security. We can see this in the tone of the political debates before Paris, San Bernardino, etc... And then compare it to the tone post. We saw a stark shift in the people's willingness to give up freedoms for security by how they reacted to candidates proposing various security measures. However, before that we saw an outrage at government overreach for the sake of security. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that as long as we have a mechanism for taking back our freedoms, we will always retain them.
I think personal freedom has been more important for the last few years, but that the pendulum is swinging back to security now. Contrary to what I suspect many feel, I think Donald Trump shows how much personal freedom people are willing to sacrifice for security. He is supported when he says national security is more important than Muslims rights and that the borders should be sealed. That speaks volumes to the fear people feel at the moment.
They said, it is always a balance between the two and it is impossible to predict what could influence public opinion in advance.
I completely agree with you. I do wonder, however, if you feel that the US will drift more towards personal freedom as time goes on. Do you think the country will or do you think that public security will become more of a priority? If you think public security will, as I do, would you agree with it and do you feel it would be justified?
Personally I believe that personal freedom should be absolute unless it impacts another's safety. When there is conflict between one person's freedom and another's safety, I believe that safety should have precedence.
I recognize that there will always be a compromise between the two since complete personal freedom is anarchy and complete security is oppressive. What I am curious about is where people feel the balance point is between the two.