Are you willing to sacrifice freedom for safety?

The division between 1984 and no organization at all would be two extremes. I would choose neither if I could.

The preferred option would depend on which society the world gravitates toward, assuming this happens without coercion. A society accepting of 1984's presentation assumes complete public obedience to an unchallenged self-appointed authority, while a lack of organization flat-out spells the destruction of civilization as a possible concept in the world. The lack of organization would be a problem because no projects that required more than one person could ever be completed.

If I were forced to choose, I would have to choose 1984. I am more social than I am individually strong, so my chances of a happy life are greater within the 1984 socialist dystopia.

In a world of no organization, I imagine I would have a very hard time securing the medication that keeps me alive. There would be no well-kept public roads. There would be no transportation of goods and services in large amounts. No supermarkets, no fuel refinement, no electricity, no internet, no consoles or computers, pretty much nothing from today would exist except for nakedness and standing in the rain. Simply speaking with someone is an act of organizing.

I would prefer a benevolent anarchy, but this would only work if humanity accepted the idea of never desiring to be an authority over another person, but still possessed the desire and willpower to assist other people whenever possible. Organization would still happen at a local level, increasing in size whenever required. We would be individuals, united as one whenever required but only when required, and only when each individual believes that it is required. Because education and desire are never equal between two people, an ideal version of this society cannot happen. A benevolent anarchy shares aspects with socialism and communism. Since every society has within it people who desire a position of authority, these groups cannot exist for long.

I think it all depends on the situation, during peace people will advocate "FREEDOM!", but during wartime all they care about is their security. Personally, I prefer security (living in a not so hot, not so cool zone in the world)

It depends on how much freedom I exchange for how much safety. In many cases a compromise is best.

1. I am perfectly fine with laws against the private possession of radioactive materials, against the private use of firearms, etc.

2. I am perfectly fine with laws that require houses to be built safely, etc.

3. I am perfectly fine with laws that restrict the freedom of travel for people that have committed serious crimes in the past.

4. I am perfectly fine with laws that require you to use surge protection.

On the contrary:

1. I am not fine with laws against the private possession of firearms for self-defense (with the exceptions of those designed for war purposes).

2. I am not fine with laws that only allow the government to build houses.

3. I am not fine with laws against free travel for everyone just because of an uncertain threat.

4. I am not fine with laws that don't allow electricity at all.

Freedom is fun, safety is, well, safe. Enough said really, I prefer fun.

No, because with freedom you basically sacrifice safety to a certain point. SO no

Lots of people are fond of the popular rock band Rush. The lineup of members are Geddy Lee on bass and vocals, Alex Lifeson on guitar and vocals, and Neil Peart on drums. Geddy and Neil, drastically out shadow Alex, even though he is the original founder of the band. But there's something we don't know about Alex... the true backstory on those many changes...
Well, Alex has been treated unfairly by fans. Since the 70s, all the guys have gone through many changes. Alex more so than anyone. His weight has changed, his hair has changed, and some of his features have changed. That's because of what happened on the A Farewell To Kings Tour. See, Alex and Neil got into many fights about a scrapped song that Alex wrote the lyrics to entitled, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. He wrote it in 1977, prior to many signifigant events that occured throughout this story.
This is a true fact. But most think that this was written on the Permanent Waves, after one of the three incidents, but it was supposed to be on Kings. Alex got into a huge fight with Neil towards the end of the tour. Long story short, Geddy intervened, Neil accidentally hit Ged, Alex then went bezerk on Neil, and nearly killed him. Geddy called the cops, but it was too late. Neil had bludgened him to death.

Neil forced him not to tell, and they dismembered him and burned his body. They knew that this couldn't leak to the news, so they searched for an Alex look-a-like. They found him. He had curlier hair, a beard and much better playing skills. Then it came to the Permanent Waves production. The "New Alex", named Johnson Lerxston, (hence the nickname) stumbled onto the song. He went to the studio with Geddy to do vocals for The Spirit of Radio, and proposed the old song to Neil and Ged. Neil was livid that the song was even considered after what he told Lerxston about it. Then, all those memories must have flooded back, because Neil chocked Lerxston to death. Geddy began to cry. Neil slapped him across the face and made him get rid of the body before Terry Brown, their producer, could arrive.

Lerxston is currently burried in Le Studio in Quebec, Canada. The 80s went well with the 3rd Alex, Davec Fable. He became a better player than both of them and everything was going well until Presto. Fable had grown tired of the keyboards and he guys agreed that it was time to shift back to guitars. It was good until Davec found the song in Geddy's rehersal studio. He read it and begged Neil to at least try it.

Geddy began to cry softly again because he knew that another "Alex" would be lost. Neil screamed at the top of his ungs "WHY MUST YOU MOCK ME?!??!?" "I SAID IT A THOUSAND FUCKING TIMES!!!" "I CAN'T, I CAN'T...." He then went to his drum kit and sat for a moment. Tears streamed down his eyes as he took out a gun. A pistol. He put it to his head, and then quickly took it away, grinned, and shot Fable. Geddy sobbed softly. 1990 came, a new Alex came. Jack Sampsonier. He stayed and played until 1996, when he and Neil got into a dispute over the tour. It was resolved. But then the tour came and he and Neil got into a fight onstage. "Alex" hit Neil with his guitar, Neil beat him with his sticks.

Jack quit and vowed vengance. He did this by, doing what he did to start the band's hiatus so to speak. It looked like an accident. But Geddy knew. After the hiatus, the new and current Alex came. James Kaminson. He never has dared to bring up the song, Geddy warned him of it. Not many know of this just me one other. I warn you now, if you read on. Be careful of who you say it to. Don't sing it out loud. Don't say it in passing. Just leave it alone....

• Gary Lee Weinrib (Geddy Lee)

Sir Gawain and The Green Night.avi

The night, he marches

On towards the hill

Searching for the one

The one whose let him down

Mocked him

Cheated him

And changed him six too many times

Beated him

Hit him

Hurt him in too many ways

He finds the man

With sticks of steel

Hey!

Hey!

Ho!

The blood

The gore

The mess

The change in person

Alex

Johnson

Davec

And finally Jim

The men who have

Replaced him....

"Safety" and "freedom" are very subjective terms. Do you think that a woman who has been violated by a TSA agent who is abusing his power feels like her "safety" is well intact and that it's worth the "freedom" that she's gained from such an experience? Or perhaps a man incarcerated for 128 for passing out flyers in front of a court house outlining the facts of jury duty to jurors and their ability to not only decide if the crime and punishment is just, but if the law is actually being applied justly. Is this all to protect our "freedom"? Are we really being kept "safe"? To those who believe that terrorism and lawlessness would take hold without these drastic measures consider this; were the laws that supposedly protect you not made by other equally flawed human? Humans which given the opportunity would exploit and abuse their positions for their own gains, and perhaps even do so in a way that seems like it's all in an effort to protect your life and liberty?

Definitely would take freedom over safety any time. I know people say that people could come and murder and rape me if they felt like, but not everyone thinks like that. Because I don't feel like that and I'm sure a lot of you don't feel like that...

sacrificing freedom is safety by itself, if you are given a certain freedom to do something to someone else you need to realize that it means that other people have that same freedom to do the same to you. If you have freedom to kill people, it means other people can kill you. If you think you can survive in such environment than freedom is better for you, if not than safety is what you need. Another example is if you have freedom to not pay certain taxes that means that later on when you need to live off those taxes like pansion and other stuff then you won't have that safety.

I am just participating in MrC's thread.