Why is it that is seems like everyone...

[So]

has some issue that they think is important enough to justify authoritarianism over? How quickly we all seem to fall back on the police state to enforce some relatively small issue. We talk about freedom, but for nearly everyone I discuss it with, it's just a bullet point.

We should have freedom of speech, but not if it hurts feelings.
We should have freedom of press, but not if it reveals secrets.
We should have freedom from unreasonable searches, but not if there is any chance that said search might save a life.

Guess what? Freedom has costs. The point is, there is a trade off. Would you rather have a totalitarian society where nobody is accidentally injured or a free society where bad things happen from time to time, but you truly control your own destiny?

As a tangent, I include this short "comic"

 

[MisterJackson]

Dark Ages and "Eye for an Eye" justice FTW!

 

[SonnyDaze]

:beer: + =

 

[Philippine Mango]

I agree with the OP. Unfortunately my dad has become so enthralled with the war on terror that he believes things like the patriot act are ok and that he'd actually rather live in an authoritarian society supposedly with out danger than a free society with danger.....

 

[mordantmonkey]

i don't think it's an either or proposition. It's a balance between the two that is constantly moving given the circumstances of the time. If the equilibrium is lost the society will usually collapse with disastrous consequences; civil war, revolution, feudalism, vigilantiism

 

[glutenberg]

How do you lecture about freedom when you barely want to allow people to have the freedom to enjoy differing levels of it?

 

[meltdown75]

Someone taser this guy.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
i don't think it's an either or proposition. It's a balance between the two that is constantly moving given the circumstances of the time. If the equilibrium is lost the society will usually collapse with disastrous consequences; civil war, revolution, feudalism, vigilantiism

See the OP. Remember, a free society is not one without laws, just one without "precrime" "thoughtcrime" and without laws against actions that hurt nobody else. Once you infringe on other people's freedom, then you sign off on the whole social contract.

 

[SagaLore]

I think we need an even balance between freedom and privacy. You can't have 100% of both.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
I think we need an even balance between freedom and privacy. You can't have 100% of both.

Care to explain what you mean? I don't see how freedom and privacy conflict...

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
i don't think it's an either or proposition. It's a balance between the two that is constantly moving given the circumstances of the time. If the equilibrium is lost the society will usually collapse with disastrous consequences; civil war, revolution, feudalism, vigilantiism

See the OP. Remember, a free society is not one without laws, just one without "precrime" "thoughtcrime" and without laws against actions that hurt nobody else. Once you infringe on other people's freedom, then you sign off on the whole social contract.

well your first example definitely falls under thought crime, however:

We should have freedom of press, but not if it reveals secrets.
We should have freedom from unreasonable searches, but not if there is any chance that said search might save a life.

doesn't necessarily, as both could be actual crime.

btw, i agree with you, however it is hard to argue the line of the last 2.
it tends to be circumstantial. For instance if a newspaper got a hold of nuclear secrets, i don't think they should be allowed to publish them. but then, a crime has been committed in that instance. The current administrations claims of "security" are usually just covering their asses, but i can think of instances where it may be legitimate.
However on the unreasonable search aspect, i believe the resonableness could in part be determined by how much of a chance it could save a life. For example, CARNIVORE, with a lottery chance of finding something significant would be certaintly "unreasonable". however there are many other circumstances that one person may deem "reasonable" and another would not.

 

[mundane]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: SagaLore
I think we need an even balance between freedom and privacy. You can't have 100% of both.

Care to explain what you mean? I don't see how freedom and privacy conflict...

I have total freedom - freedom to break into your house, rifle through your personal documents, and take whatever I want. Freedom to kill, freedom to torture, freedom to maim, the fifth freedom to accomplish what I deem necessary. That doesn't conflict with my privacy at all. Oh wait, does it infringe on yours? I guess we'll have to limit it, darn.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: diegoalcatraz

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: SagaLore
I think we need an even balance between freedom and privacy. You can't have 100% of both.

Care to explain what you mean? I don't see how freedom and privacy conflict...

I have total freedom - freedom to break into your house, rifle through your personal documents, and take whatever I want. Freedom to kill, freedom to torture, freedom to maim, the fifth freedom to accomplish what I deem necessary. That doesn't conflict with my privacy at all. Oh wait, does it infringe on yours? I guess we'll have to limit it, darn.

See the OP. You're not using any rational definition of a free society. Freedom extends infinitely far, so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others. I thought this was so obvious that it didn't bear saying. I guess not. Freedom is not a synonym for "Physically able to"

Edit: Also, your use of the word privacy is still incoherent. You are using freedom in the wrong way, and then you are using the word privacy as another synonym for freedom...

 

[mundane]

Originally posted by: So

...

See the OP. You're not using any rational definition of a free society. Freedom extends infinitely far, so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others. I thought this was so obvious that it didn't bear saying. I guess not. Freedom is not a synonym for "Physically able to"

Edit: Also, your use of the word privacy is still incoherent. You are using freedom in the wrong way, and then you are using the word privacy as another synonym for freedom...

I skimmed the OP and quickly responded to the post, so I mis-interpreted the content. Of course I'd throw in the most exaggerated case and widest definition possible.

I am a bit concerned with some of the growing trends you cite. I believe there are no absolute freedoms under a society (as you said, as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights). Given that caveat, someone needs to interpret and weigh the cost of reducing one freedom in favoring of protecting another. That interpretation is subjective to the current state of society.

 

[JS80]

the "freedom" you speak of ultimately leads to unraveling of that society.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: diegoalcatraz

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: SagaLore
I think we need an even balance between freedom and privacy. You can't have 100% of both.

Care to explain what you mean? I don't see how freedom and privacy conflict...

I have total freedom - freedom to break into your house, rifle through your personal documents, and take whatever I want. Freedom to kill, freedom to torture, freedom to maim, the fifth freedom to accomplish what I deem necessary. That doesn't conflict with my privacy at all. Oh wait, does it infringe on yours? I guess we'll have to limit it, darn.

See the OP. You're not using any rational definition of a free society. Freedom extends infinitely far, so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others. I thought this was so obvious that it didn't bear saying. I guess not. Freedom is not a synonym for "Physically able to"

Edit: Also, your use of the word privacy is still incoherent. You are using freedom in the wrong way, and then you are using the word privacy as another synonym for freedom...

According to your OP, people should have the freedom to slander others? People should have the freedom to release whatever information they can get their hands on including names of operatives whose identities being kept secret is what keeps them out of harms way? Freedom to never have to worry about the often argument for the greater good?

If you live in a perfect world where no one can do anything wrong, please send over the invitation to the rest of us so that we can join you. Your definition of freedom is distorted.