The Forum Site - Join the conversation

Would you sacrifice your civil liberties for more security?

Reply to Topic
markfox01 On October 29, 2018

Welshman in Brum.., United Kin
#1New Post! Feb 24, 2006 @ 09:06:41
Ledgeslation and increased police powers, are being discussed in parliement, and in congress and pretty much every western country in the world... The labour governemnt are useing scare tactics, in my opinion a type of propaganda, making us beleive that are secruity is at risk. With ID cards becoming law and the extension of holding a prisoner with out charge longer than a month, it makes you think whats next??

and are we givening into to the speculation and rumours that the
system is right??

are we under threat??

Or are we slowly being turned into a dictatorship..??

When voting for your next government the topics of agenda that really should be in mind is not council tax, or weather smoking is banned in pubs, we should look at there terror policy, and what control they want to have...

All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting............George Orwell
beobscureclearly On August 04, 2006

Back of Beyond, Australia
#2New Post! Feb 24, 2006 @ 09:16:25
I, personally, would not. Unfortunately, however, the average citizen is oblivious to what the government is doing, so long as they have $ in their pockets.
shaggyjebus On August 26, 2008


Goodlettsville, Tennessee
#3New Post! Feb 24, 2006 @ 09:18:49
If you have to sacrifice liberty for safety, then what are you sacrificing for?

Aren't people supposed to be willing to defend liberty with their lives?

You're right - it's propoganda. The government is trying to trick people into believing that a terrorist attack will come any day now . . . but (at least in America), there has yet to be another attack since 9/11. More than four years ago! Yet the threat level stays raised . . . and why? Why is it raised when nothing has even been attempted at all in the past four years?
mollymalone On March 01, 2008


Muff, Ireland
#4New Post! Feb 24, 2006 @ 09:20:19
Its all propoganda. Its all about money.
cobber On July 22, 2006


Rockhampton, Australia
#5New Post! Feb 24, 2006 @ 09:59:01
I would not hand over my personal liberties for such an excuse. Any government that removes their nations freedoms in their lust for power as ours are now, deserve to be toppled.
alljive On March 03, 2007

trondheim, Norway
#6New Post! Feb 24, 2006 @ 11:28:59
The price for safety is liberty.

This is very unfortunate as the perceived value of safety has been inflated to beond obesity. It seems there is nothing people would not give up for a little piece of safety, be it safety from accidents or terrorists or disease or chaos(sigh) or whatnot.

The more liberty you have to choose your actions, the less "safety" is afforded the rest of society(up to a point, determined by factors like education and social evolution. amongst others). After all, you could choose to drive dangerous cars while under the influence of a drug someone chose to make right? In a society where safety is valued too highly you always see less liberty, both individual and governmental,
being afforded.
Some losses of liberties are more or less accepted, like keeping the noise level down at night when living with other people all around you, because a great many people see how it benefits them in the long run. Not everyone accepts and adheres to the same standards, but each and every last one of us is restraining him/her self to some exstent.

Civil liberties are a little different. The difference is this:

They already ARE at a minimum. Civil liberties are areas where greater society feels the government should not intervene in any but supportive ways. This includes our minimum right to free speech, our minimum right to privacy, our minimum freedom from unjust incarseration, and a good many other things. Giving up ANY ONE of your civil liberties is going below the MINIMUM standard very intelligent and thinking individuals have set and kept, in for instance the american constitution(or norwegian, french, etc). The minimum standard they thought would be needed for a society they would WANT TO LIVE IN.

With that in mind I can't see how ANY politician would argue less civil liberties without having motives of a darker sort than the preservation of a good life.

To me, more freedom is the ultimate answer to last. Freedom of information, of time, of place, of life, of Choice. There is no way around it... every individual needs to have free access to unbiased education at all times if what is really wanted is Freedom, Equality, and the pursuit of happiness for all of society.

Removing civil liberties transfers more power to the ruling body, and to those that run it, thus tipping a balance that has been carefully worked on for as long as humanity has bothered with living in groups.

I personally belive it should never be done. But at the very least, when this unwise thing is done, it should be considered very very carefully by those being ruled. The ruling body should NEVER be able to do it by itself, if that ever happens you liberties will be shown to be what they are: Illusions.
redrumydoolb On November 18, 2007

Cotter, Arkansas
#7New Post! Feb 24, 2006 @ 19:40:47
alljive, that was B-E-A-utiful. I completely agree with every word you said. We need more freedom to secure our liberties. I would never give up my liberties for safety.
svierge On January 24, 2011

minneapolis, Minnesota
#8New Post! Feb 24, 2006 @ 21:50:51
Any further government intrusion into the lives of average Americans is unnecessary. When do the McCarthy-era witch hunts begin? Before the scary word "terrorism" we had the scary term "communism." Now the British govt. is contemplating similar measures???

Average citizens behind the Iron Curtain were well-acquainted with illegal wiretappng. When the KGB did it, they were evil. The Evil Empire as Mr. Reagan called it. The Czechoslovakians had the StB in the bad old days. How is it not wrong for the US to do what it's old former enemies used to once upon a time?? How were they bad all the time but our govt. is good if it does this?

Why sit back and allow our own government to wiretap and gather intelligence on its own citizens under the ruse of "preventing terrorism?" The Bush administration would like us to think that these measures are to protect us from "terrorism." Sure, piss down my neck and tell me it's raining, too. One would think Americans would only surrender their civil liberties by sheer force, not as a voluntary act in the name of safety and security.
dark_lotus On June 28, 2010

Crewe, United Kingdom
#9New Post! Feb 24, 2006 @ 21:55:04
Saftey is an illusion that the government wants us to beleive. All it is is another method for trying to control us and strip away our freedoms some more. i dissaprove completely
kebab_boy On April 05, 2011

Bristol, United Kingdom
#10New Post! Feb 25, 2006 @ 22:32:08
No, I wouldn't give up my freedoms if they say it's for increased safety.

My reasons for this are firstly that in the case of one of the new laws they want to bring in that would further limit our civil freedoms, that is compulsary ID cards, that has been shown not to work.

How it has been shown like this is because of the london bombings. The people who carried those attacks out wouldn't have been prevented even if they'd had to have ID cards, because they did not come in to the country to commit the atrossities, they were already there. ID cards would only make it harder for people coming in to the country from carrying out attacks at airports and that. So this is why I don't think there's much point in having that law.

You could also argue that if you can't have freedom, what's the point of being extra-safe from terrorism? I mean it isn't like we're getting terrible attacks on a regular basis at the moment, and as I say, the one we have had hear in the UK couldn't have been prevented anyway.

And isn't us having less freedom what the terrorists want? I actually think that any big change we make in our lives because of them would be us giving in to them.

Finally, I think that for all of these laws that are going to affect us, I think they should hold a referendem on them. If the government can just take a way our freedoms by itself, disregarding our oppinion, then those freedoms weren't actually so in the first place.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Law
Sun Apr 24, 2011 @ 02:22
5 3379
New posts   News & Current Events
Fri Apr 01, 2011 @ 03:41
17 1518
New posts   Politics
Thu Oct 02, 2008 @ 14:46
31 1039
New posts   Politics
Mon Sep 17, 2007 @ 16:43
17 788
New posts   Society & Lifestyles
Sun Jun 10, 2012 @ 16:25
4 600