Free? Or Safe?

[AZRogue]

I was curious what people here might believe on the issue so I wanted to solicit opinions:

How much of our liberty should we sacrifice in favor of increasing our safety?

It's a touchy issue, from conversations I've had with friends. We all want to be safe, to FEEL safe, but is it worth sacrificing our liberty for? For instance, I loathe the Patriot Act. I wish it was GONE and I'm not sure how easy it will be to recover some of our liberties now that they've been compromised. I'm not sure if the trade off in perceived safety is worth such a high cost. No, I'm sure it's not, for me.

So, what do you guys think? Should liberty be traded for safety? Should the government be allowed to search our property without an initial warrant? How about issue wiretaps without a warrant? Should a suspect be held, sometimes for a long period of time, without being formally charged with anything?

[PWD]

Only as much as each individual is comfortable with.

That largely precludes sweeping government one-size-fits-all programs that intrude upon rights.

[Varaj]

Very, very little. My good buddy Ben said it best, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[Name Lips]

Attacks against our liberty damage us more than attacks against our lives.

[Dr_Avalanche]

Me and a friend are talking about printing up t-shirts with "Freedom, not Fear" on, after the world wide event on 11 October. (http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Freedom_Not_Fear_2008)

Needless to say, I think the current trend all over the world to put safety over freedom is an outright disaster.

[Limper]

None, safty is an illusion.

The only rights one should give up are the ones that allow for the social contract to exist. I give up my right to kill peopls and they give up their right to kill people so that we can coexist... thats pretty much the core of the contract and about as far as we should need to give up rights.

[Limper]

Me and a friend are talking about printing up t-shirts with "Freedom, not Fear" on, after the world wide event on 11 October. (http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Freedom_Not_Fear_2008)

Needless to say, I think the current trend all over the world to put safety over freedom is an outright disaster.

I wonder how much of that is due to population preasures? Crowding makes us feel less secure and spawns a fear response.

[Trainz]

This thread fascinates me. We all strongly agree that liberty is more important than safety.

That said, some of you re-elected Bush after he created the patriot act.

Why???

[Dacke]

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to these things. I mean, I realize there has to be some weighing of the two factors against one another, but I'm definitely weighing the scales toward liberty.

Which is what pisses me off so much about the Swedish government, which seems to be all about increasing security by a teeny teeny bit at the cost of shitloads of liberty. And it doesn't matter which block we put in charge, both sides are equally bad.

[PWD]

This thread fascinates me. We all strongly agree that liberty is more important than safety.

That said, some of you re-elected Bush after he created the patriot act.

Why???

Clearly, some people were so afraid of Kerry, they chose the devil they knew.

[Singularity]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

I agree with the old dead white guy.

[AZRogue]

This thread fascinates me. We all strongly agree that liberty is more important than safety.

That said, some of you re-elected Bush after he created the patriot act.

Why???

We are in agreement. The Patriot Act was a deal breaker, for me, and the reason I went back that time to official Libertarian. I went back to Republican recently to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and just have been too lazy to change it since.

The Patriot Act. Shit. They even named it in such a way so as to imply that if you didn't like it you weren't patriotic. Bullshit. Those who would sell our liberties for the false coin called "security" are the ones who are unpatriotic.

[Utrecht]

This thread fascinates me. We all strongly agree that liberty is more important than safety.

That said, some of you re-elected Bush after he created the patriot act.

Why???

Couple of things on this

1) as PWD indicated below - Kerry was a worse choice for me
2) I had financial reasons (which have bourne fruit for me) to vote for the Shrub - the infringements on my freedoms did not out weigh the financial benefits.

while I appreciate the spirit of the thread - I am pesonally OK with some manner of big-brother - I recognize that it is a slippery slope - but not one at the current level that personally bothers me - if things change - my answer might as well.

[Sobek]

This thread fascinates me. We all strongly agree that liberty is more important than safety.

That said, some of you re-elected Bush after he created the patriot act.

Why???
I was generally happy with Bush's first term, Patriot Act notwithstanding. His second term has been a pile of feces, IMO.

In answer to the original question, I favor liberty over security.

[AZRogue]

Couple of things on this

1) as PWD indicated below - Kerry was a worse choice for me
2) I had financial reasons (which have bourne fruit for me) to vote for the Shrub - the infringements on my freedoms did not out weigh the financial benefits.

while I appreciate the spirit of the thread - I am pesonally OK with some manner of big-brother - I recognize that it is a slippery slope - but not one at the current level that personally bothers me - if things change - my answer might as well.

Fair enough. I personally believe that the current level has gone, already, way too far but I know not everyone agrees with me. It's so difficult to regain a liberty that has been lost that I would rather never give any of them away in the first place. If it makes it a touch more difficult for law enforcement, oh well, that's the job. Their convenience isn't more important than my freedom.

I do know many fellow conservatives that don't agree with me, though. :)

[Singularity]

I was generally happy with Bush's first term, Patriot Act notwithstanding. His second term has been a pile of feces, IMO.

In answer to the original question, I favor liberty over security.

No offense, but his first term was too, it just wasn't as noticeable. The fact of the matter is that Bush has done some small amount of good in his second term because he started doing things that actually made sense rather than just clinging to his faith based policies. The notion that his second term was worse is all just a matter of (incorrect) perception.

[Sobek]

I do know many fellow conservatives that don't agree with me, though. :)
This one does. I have a feeling this may be the issue that splits the Republicans in the nearish future. There is a harsh divide between the authoritarian conservatives and the classic liberal conservatives (that's a fucked up thing to even have to write). Bush is authoritarian and is not what I want representing my views.

No offense, but his first term was too, it just wasn't as noticeable.
That may be. I'm still generally behind the idea of the War on Terror, even Iraq. I don't think it's been handled real well, but the broad strokes weren't too bad.

Pretty much all the Homeland Security stuff, and other swaths of his domestic policy are simply wrong-headed. I don't know that Kerry would have been any less wrong-headed, so much as equally wrong, with poorer initial rhetoric.

[Limper]

This thread fascinates me. We all strongly agree that liberty is more important than safety.

That said, some of you re-elected Bush after he created the patriot act.

Why???

I voted Libertarian that time as the libral socialist doofus or the bumbling Texan assclown to hard a choice to make.

[Trainz]

Well, I am relatively relieved by you answers. Thanks.

As for you Utrecht... how could you not see things coming? I hope your financial parameters were worth it, because it's going to be real hard to recover what was lost during his second term.

[SpikeyFreak]

Free.

9/11 is the price for freedom. If 3,000 people die once every 300 years so that 300,000,000 people can be free, then so be it.

--Vehement Spikey

[SpikeyFreak]

2) I had financial reasons (which have bourne fruit for me) to vote for the Shrub - the infringements on my freedoms did not out weigh the financial benefits.
This is the second time that I have seen you say this. I think it's pissing me off more this time.

What kind of selfish fuck says, "I know he's not the best candidate, but I'll have more money if he's elected, so I'm voting for him." Which is exactly what you're implying.

"I don't give a shit about humanity, cause I will have more money."

Fuck, I need to go do some work to calm down.

-- :mad: Spikey

[FeatsofClay]

2) I had financial reasons (which have bourne fruit for me) to vote for the Shrub - the infringements on my freedoms did not out weigh the financial benefits.

.

This is one of the major contradictions I see in the current conservative movement. Lots of talk of 'sacrifice' and lots of 'what's best for me'.

No thought that waht is best for everyone may frequently be what is best for the individual.

[Eliezer]

This is one of the major contradictions I see in the current conservative movement. Lots of talk of 'sacrifice' and lots of 'what's best for me'.

No thought that waht is best for everyone may frequently be what is best for the individual.

Amen!

Raise the taxes on the rich. A LOT!!!

[Name Lips]

Free.

9/11 is the price for freedom. If 3,000 people die once every 300 years so that 300,000,000 people can be free, then so be it.

--Vehement Spikey
3000 is small change. The terrorist attacks and all the fallout wars in the Mid East have all been trivial in terms of the cost in American lives - when you compare then to virtually ALL previous wars America has engaged in.

We've forgotten what it's like to have causalities in the millions. I hope we never have to remember. But I'd rather millions of Americans - including my friends, children, and self, die rather than give up our liberty to save those millions of lives.

[Eliezer]

And on that note, less security, more Freedom.

I like having security and it's easy to say more freedom less security.

When gangs of hooligans armed with katanas are out terrorizing a population it's easy to see why people would want large knives banned. In general, I'm in favor of finding solutions that don't penalize having a katana, but penalize using a katana in commission of a crime.

That said, there is a balance in this. I think we have a pretty good balance in the US. It's gone too far the wrong way with airline travel, but hopefully that will be corrected.

[Trainz]

That said, there is a balance in this. I think we have a pretty good balance in the US. It's gone too far the wrong way with airline travel, but hopefully that will be corrected.

That's one aspect of the Patriot Act that is here to stay buddy. The wire tapping and no warrant searches might be annuled, depending on what the next gvt has in mind, but airline increased security is here to stay.

But hey, Utrecht made a few bucks, so it's all good.

[Dr_Avalanche]

Raise the taxes on the rich. A LOT!!!

I'm not sure that's what's best for the majority either. I do think the rich should shoulder a bigger share of the burden than others, both because they can, and because they have profited from a system that has allowed them to get rich in the first place.

But punitively taxing people who have reached success is going to make a lot of hard working entrepreneurial people look at the system and say "fuck this, it's not worth it, if my company is successful you're just going to take away my hard earned profits anyway. I'll let some stupid sucker try their hand at capitalism while I cash my paycheck at the level in the system where the reward/effort ratio is best."

The rich should be taxed just enough that the motivation to become rich is still high, while providing the maximum return to society so the burden on the already resource-strapped is minimized. I wish both candidates were honest enough to admit that they both accept this and it's all just a matter of adjusting an existing system a few percent here and a few percent there, more for show than ideology.

[Singularity]

I'm not sure that's what's best for the majority either. I do think the rich should shoulder a bigger share of the burden than others, both because they can, and because they have profited from a system that has allowed them to get rich in the first place.

But punitively taxing people who have reached success is going to make a lot of hard working entrepreneurial people look at the system and say "fuck this, it's not worth it, if my company is successful you're just going to take away my hard earned profits anyway. I'll let some stupid sucker try their hand at capitalism while I cash my paycheck at the level in the system where the reward/effort ratio is best."

The rich should be taxed just enough that the motivation to become rich is still high, while providing the maximum return to society so the burden on the already resource-strapped is minimized. I wish both candidates were honest enough to admit that they both accept this and it's all just a matter of adjusting an existing system a few percent here and a few percent there, more for show than ideology.

You know, as long as 20% of the population holds 80% of the wealth (or was it 10/90 now, I forget), I say fuck 'em. They're rolling in so much money, they can afford to pay more taxes.

[Eliezer]

I'm not sure that's what's best for the majority either. I do think the rich should shoulder a bigger share of the burden than others, both because they can, and because they have profited from a system that has allowed them to get rich in the first place.

But punitively taxing people who have reached success is going to make a lot of hard working entrepreneurial people look at the system and say "fuck this, it's not worth it, if my company is successful you're just going to take away my hard earned profits anyway. I'll let some stupid sucker try their hand at capitalism while I cash my paycheck at the level in the system where the reward/effort ratio is best."

The rich should be taxed just enough that the motivation to become rich is still high, while providing the maximum return to society so the burden on the already resource-strapped is minimized. I wish both candidates were honest enough to admit that they both accept this and it's all just a matter of adjusting an existing system a few percent here and a few percent there, more for show than ideology.

True enough. You have to have money to move the economy. The Republican talk of small business owners and the power of entrepreneurs in the market has much truth to it. There needs to be a balance and taxes should not be punitive, however the balance has moved too far in favor of the rich and class inequality is at an all time high. It is time for some social justice.

[FeatsofClay]

You know, as long as 20% of the population holds 80% of the wealth (or was it 10/90 now, I forget), I say fuck 'em. They're rolling in so much money, they can afford to pay more taxes.


Another idea and discussion full of merit. Now with added vitrol! That's right, Singularity to the rescue!

Nothing to crush open discourse like pouring vinegar in everyone's tea. :rolleyes:

[Dr_Avalanche]

I don't know the American tax scale enough to have any opinion on that. You may very well be right.

[Utrecht]

This is the second time that I have seen you say this. I think it's pissing me off more this time.

What kind of selfish fuck says, "I know he's not the best candidate, but I'll have more money if he's elected, so I'm voting for him." Which is exactly what you're implying.


OK, clearly, you missed Item one where I said Kerry was worse - so please read my entire post.


"I don't give a shit about humanity, cause I will have more money."


Just to clarify my position on where humanity falls in the heirachy

1) Myself and my family
2) My Community
3) My Nation
4) Humanity/the world

So while its effectivly the same thing as what you said - I would phrase it as, I am providing for my familiy before worrying about some vague sense of humanity - which considering some of the shitholes in the world - does not give a crap about me.

Second, you have NO idea, NONE the amount of money or time that I donate to causes benefiting this vague concept of humanity you espouse - so until you do, you can take your sense of umbrage and continue your failing attempts at rightous indignation.

[Singularity]

OK, clearly, you missed Item one where I said Kerry was worse - so please read my entire post.

Except that that's clearly not an informed opinion. Anyone who was paying attention during Bush's first term should see it as self evident that Kerry was the better choice by far.

Just to clarify my position on where humanity falls in the heirachy

1) Myself and my family
2) My Community
3) My Nation
4) Humanity/the world

Yeah, fuck the world as long as you're comfortable. It's the Republican way though, isn't it?

Second, you have NO idea, NONE the amount of money or time that I donate to causes benefiting this vague concept of humanity you espouse - so until you do, you can take your sense of umbrage and continue your failing attempts at rightous indignation.

When someone says that they put someone in office because it benefits them financially, not because they're the better candidate, and that they put humanity and the rest of the world last on their list of priorities, I think that pretty much nullifies any money they write off (usually for tax purposes) by giving to charities.

[Eliezer]

Except that that's clearly not an informed opinion. ...should see it as self evident...



You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Singularity]

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No, it does. Bush is a bad president who should have not only been bounced from office, but prosecuted on his way out. In fact, I'm still hoping that there will be post-presidential charges brought up against him so that he won't have the power to pardon himself and his cronies.

[FeatsofClay]

No, it does. Bush is a bad president who should have not only been bounced from office, but prosecuted on his way out. In fact, I'm still hoping that there will be post-presidential charges brought up against him so that he won't have the power to pardon himself and his cronies.

A self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.

[Eliezer]

No, it does. Bush is a bad president who should have not only been bounced from office, but prosecuted on his way out. In fact, I'm still hoping that there will be post-presidential charges brought up against him so that he won't have the power to pardon himself and his cronies.

You're on a roll today, aren't you?

One of the hallmarks of a mature mind is the ability to see other people's positions no matter how much you disagree with them. I would recommend coming back to the intertubes and forums on politics when you grow a few years.

[Singularity]

You're on a roll today, aren't you?

One of the hallmarks of a mature mind is the ability to see other people's positions no matter how much you disagree with them. I would recommend coming back to the intertubes and forums on politics when you grow a few years.

Condescension? Really? :lol: I see other people's points of view and I have no problem calling them on them when they're utterly fucked up.

[Eliezer]

Condescension? Really? :lol: I see other people's points of view and I have no problem calling them on them when they're utterly fucked up.

Well yes, condescension. Sometimes it's too easy. :o

I'm not saying I disagree about Bush, but rather about it's "self evident" nature. It does take looking at the evidence. Now the evidence on the Bush presidency being a total mess is so available that I have a tough time understanding how people can not see it. Apparently most people have if you look at his approval ratings.

[Utrecht]

Except that that's clearly not an informed opinion. Anyone who was paying attention during Bush's first term should see it as self evident that Kerry was the better choice by far.

Look, if Kerry was sooo much better a candidate then Bush then why didn't he sweep the floor with him? Now I am sure that you have your personal beliefs - mine is quite simple - Bush was better - and significantly better for me as an individual and a business owner who is responsible for the livelyhoods of others.

Now I have no issue with you disagreeing with me - but come on many - telling me that my opinion is invalid is beyond the line don't you think?



Yeah, fuck the world as long as you're comfortable. It's the Republican way though, isn't it?


So now we are left with generalities? I can do it to - Well, I find the republican way a lot better than the democrat's, tax the shit out of people so they can redistibution it to their thrall-like voting block - thereby perpetuating the cycle for generations on end.

See, it sounds as preposterous as your vitrol ladden slop (and no I dont beleive what I just said)


When someone says that they put someone in office because it benefits them financially, not because they're the better candidate, and that they put humanity and the rest of the world last on their list of priorities, I think that pretty much nullifies any money they write off (usually for tax purposes) by giving to charities.

Again, you too clearly missed the part where I said Kerry was worse candidate than Bush (you clearly disagree, and that is fine)

Further, you are now assigning motive (tax breaks) to my activities? :shock: Man you have brass ones don't you? Perhaps it is because I think that non-government organizations can do a whole hell of alot better job of serving my community, my country and this vague sense of humanity than any government can.

Further, I am truly curious, where do you put humanity in the list of priorities?

[FeatsofClay]

This is one of the major contradictions I see in the current conservative movement. Lots of talk of 'sacrifice' and lots of 'what's best for me'.

No thought that waht is best for everyone may frequently be what is best for the individual.

Again, I try to engage Utrecht in conversation and debate and Sing comes in and theconversation grinds to a halt and the points go out the window.

Utrecht, he embraces the ignore feature. Embrace it back and let's have some decent debate? Huh?

[AZRogue]

True enough. You have to have money to move the economy. The Republican talk of small business owners and the power of entrepreneurs in the market has much truth to it. There needs to be a balance and taxes should not be punitive, however the balance has moved too far in favor of the rich and class inequality is at an all time high. It is time for some social justice.

Much wisdom here. Thanks, amigo. I'd rep you but I have to spread it around, first. :)

As to the rest of the thread, here at the end, a person's opinions are not fact, though we all may wish they were self-evident truths respected by God, Country, and everyone on the internet, but it's just not so.

I, personally, did not vote for Bush the second term because of his actions on the social liberties front. That's the issue that was, and is, most important to me. I don't presume to believe that everyone should hold the same priorities as I do. By the same token, sniping at someone who voted with another set of priorities in mind is not helpful. Someone wanting to provide the best quality of life to their family is, IMO, exceedingly rational.

We're not talking about proponents of the KKK here; we're talking about different political viewpoints in relation to the redistribution of wealth and also on where the tax burden should fall the heaviest. There are a lot of shades between each of the poles on the issue and none of them are "evil", just different.

Understanding and respecting each other is a necessary step if we want to move past to the point where we can compromise.

We just happen to need more political options along some of the different degrees between the poles.

[Utrecht]

This is one of the major contradictions I see in the current conservative movement. Lots of talk of 'sacrifice' and lots of 'what's best for me'.

No thought that waht is best for everyone may frequently be what is best for the individual.

I think that you are looking at this too narrow - from a govenment perspective I think that is correct - Republicans are a me first group of folks. However, when you extend the idea of sacrifice and giving to NGOs/community then the republicans compare if not exceed the general population (in fact, I recall studies indicating that the typical Republican (might have been bible belters) contribute more per capita to social causes than a similar Europeans (who relies on their taxes to the government to fund those activities))



Again, I try to engage Utrecht in conversation and debate and Sing comes in and theconversation grinds to a halt and the points go out the window.

Utrecht, he embraces the ignore feature. Embrace it back and let's have some decent debate? Huh?

Fair enough - but I don't really beleive in the ignore feature - Sing (and others) do occasionally have valid points that make me stop and think - and I dont want to lose that - plus this is about the only forum that requires it....

[FeatsofClay]

I think that you are looking at this too narrow - from a govenment perspective I think that is correct - Republicans are a me first group of folks.

But the entire current Repub campaign is centered around the slogan "Country first"

However, when you extend the idea of sacrifice and giving to NGOs/community then the republicans compare if not exceed the general population (in fact, I recall studies indicating that the typical Republican (might have been bible belters) contribute more per capita to social causes than a similar Europeans (who relies on their taxes to the government to fund those activities))

Did this breakdown come with a breakdown by income? Love to see it.

I would imagine that a lot of this giving is to churches. Which is the WORST way to support other. Churches are notoriously horrid about spending money poorly.

[Utrecht]

But the entire current Repub campaign is centered around the slogan "Country first"

Now you are just poking to poke :D - as you know the gyst is putting your country above you (as in McCain "I was a POW") and really has nothing to do with charity/social programs.



Did this breakdown come with a breakdown by income? Love to see it.


I dont remember - will try and track it down - think it might be NTL era.


I would imagine that a lot of this giving is to churches. Which is the WORST way to support other. Churches are notoriously horrid about spending money poorly.

yes, a great deal of it is to churches (in fact overwhelming so IIRC). Why is it the worst way? Any cites on this - because my experience is that they are pretty good (nothing to back it other than my perceptions and the annual reports that our Parish annual report documents)

[Utrecht]

I dont remember - will try and track it down - think it might be NTL era.


OK here are a couple of things -

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/07/taxation-vs-charitable-donation-way.html

This one while not directly related - does talk about the psychologial reasons why (interesting read -ultimately no data :))


OK, here it is


www.minhac.es/ief/Publicaciones/Revistas/Hacienda%20Publica/
165/165_charitable.pdf

Charitable giving to humanitarian organizations in Spain

---------------------------

and the relevant data is listed below (note that some of the data were
read off the graph in Figure 1)


COUNTRY................PER CAP. GIVING

Spain..........................122
Belgium........................120
U.K............................117
Netherlands....................110
Ireland........................100
France..........................74
Finland.........................70
Austria.........................50
Germany.........................39
Hungary.........................32
Slovakia........................25
Czech Republic..................25
Romania..........................5

U.S............................278

values are in Euros

[Singularity]

FoC is just indulging in blatant douchebaggery. It's all about denouncing me every time I pop into a thread and speak my mind.

Back to the ignore list.

[Eliezer]

FoC is just indulging in blatant douchebaggery. It's all about denouncing me every time I pop into a thread and speak my mind.

Back to the ignore list.

lol :lol:

[Teve]

None, safty is an illusion.

The only rights one should give up are the ones that allow for the social contract to exist. I give up my right to kill peopls and they give up their right to kill people so that we can coexist... thats pretty much the core of the contract and about as far as we should need to give up rights.

I have to agree 100%. My ONLY right that should be infringed is the restricting of your rights. And that includes the right to own and keep property. There is a need for a "social contract" but besides that....

[Teve]

[QUOTE=Eliezer;61607]And on that note, less security, more Freedom.

I like having security and it's easy to say more freedom less security.

When gangs of hooligans armed with katanas are out terrorizing a population it's easy to see why people would want large knives banned. In general, I'm in favor of finding solutions that don't penalize having a katana, but penalize using a katana in commission of a crime. QUOTE]

I've always been confused at the punishment of a crime based on what you use to commit it? An intentional willfull murder is a murder, if you use a katana, a gun, brass knuckles or your hands...
It's easy to say more freedom, because that is what it should be. I am responsible for my safety, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
And in general I don't want their help. The caviat would be the aforementioned "social contract"

[Eliezer]

I've always been confused at the punishment of a crime based on what you use to commit it? An intentional willfull murder is a murder, if you use a katana, a gun, brass knuckles or your hands...
It's easy to say more freedom, because that is what it should be. I am responsible for my safety, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
And in general I don't want their help. The caviat would be the aforementioned "social contract"
:what:
Most people would disagree with that assessment. As a matter of fact it's 100% contradictory to the preamble to the constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution) which outlines the purposes of government.

You may claim you're the one responsible for your safety, but it is in reality (whether you like it or not) the responsibility of both you and the government.

Whether you like laws that impose harsher penalties for the breaking of the law or not is a separate issue than the question of who is responsible for your safety.


Look at it from this perspective: If it is not the responsibility of governments to protect the weak from the strong (to try to ensure your safety) then why do we have laws against murder? It has always been the responsibility of government to help enforce the social contract that allow people to coexist.

[Teve]

:what:
Most people would disagree with that assessment. As a matter of fact it's 100% contradictory to the preamble to the constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution) which outlines the purposes of government.

You may claim you're the one responsible for your safety, but it is in reality (whether you like it or not) the responsibility of both you and the government.

Whether you like laws that impose harsher penalties for the breaking of the law or not is a separate issue than the question of who is responsible for your safety.


Look at it from this perspective: If it is not the responsibility of governments to protect the weak from the strong (to try to ensure your safety) then why do we have laws against murder? It has always been the responsibility of government to help enforce the social contract that allow people to coexist.

That would be the "social contract" part of what was said. Crimes against me and my property should not be allowed. And yes they should enforce those laws, I agree that's why they are there. I would even agree they are there to protect us from invasion, and all that, but there is a balance, and I favor erroring on the side of liberty, everytime.
(this is a different issue, but it is NOT the responsibility to protect me from myself, or from being offended, or to detirmine how I think, no matter how detrimental it may be to myself, or so many other things the government attempts to do, usually poorly)
But I do not expect the government, or police, or whomever to prevent crime. The police come after the crime is committed, not before, and RARELY during. It is my responsibility.
I am not arguing for anarchy, that is not my position. Just simply I will give up perceived "safety" for my liberty. In more ways than many people will.

[Eliezer]

Hence "both" are responsible...

[Teve]

Hence "both" are responsible...

I do believe that's what I said, when I said:

And in general I don't want their help. The caviat would be the aforementioned "social contract"

Different words I guess, same meaning, that whole caviat thing :) It's nice to agree sometimes :tongue: