11

Safety vs. Freedom (Natural Rights)

Posted by dbhalling 3 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
57 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Those who would trade a freedom for a little security
will get neither, and
deserve neither
(Benjamin Franklin – sort of)

The purpose of government is to protect your Natural Rights, not to keep you safe. Reversing these is reversing cause and effect. If safety is your priority then the government should build big prisons and put everyone in them where they can protect them.

The safety (security) first goal is why we have no new vaccines, why we banned DDT and killed over 100 million people, why we don’t have nuclear power – resulting in the deaths of 10s of thousands of people. This is precautionary principle of Anthropomorphic Global Warming with the same disastrous results.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ richrobinson 3 years, 8 months ago
    I


    I have long been in favor of eliminating the FDA, EPA and most of the other illegal government agencies that exist. It is a difficult argument to win. Nancy Pelosi was asked about Trumps pick for SCOTUS. She reflexively went to fear mongering. She said that he would dirty the air and water, take away womens rights, make children less safe...and on and on. Fear and insecurity are effective weapons for Progressives and when you throw in the press as an accomplice it's hard to convince people that freedom and liberty are superior to any alternative.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 3 years, 8 months ago
      Fear of not being protected by big government is a tool in the libtard playbook unless you're talking about illegals considered to be future Jackass Party voters.
      That's why a smiling and wide-eyed Princess Pelosi called that recent swarm of illegals from Mexico "an opportunity." Never mind that illegals can be infiltrated by even more illegal criminals and terrorists.
      Increased empowering votes are more important to Dem politicians than what can happen to innocent people.
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 3 years, 8 months ago
    So, if I put up a fence with a lockable gate, place signs on my yard saying keep out, put a locking my door on my home and keep it closed and locked more than open, I am a prisoner? And those wishing to come on my property to use my garden faucet for water and enter my home because they are hungry or use my toilet because they have need to do so, or lay their heads on my bed because they are cold and tired from traveling, have every right to do so because they are passing through to elsewhere and my property is in the way?

    I get natural rights (individuals enter society with certain rights that no government has the right to deny). I also get that we live in a world with boundaries, political and personal. Ignoring those pesky unnatural boundaries is a great way to get yourself hurt or worse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by edweaver 3 years, 8 months ago
      It sounds like you are talking about property rights which as Dale stated, is a natural right. The government can never keep one safe. It's impossible with all the money in the world. Government can only secure the right to protect and defend one's own property. I don't believe anyone has the right to do as you state, without your permission.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 3 years, 8 months ago
        True that the government cannot keep you safe that's why we have the 2nd Amendment. However it can filter immigration as best it can to reduce the likelihood I'll have to shoot someone. National Defense, including setting and holding a border, is a primary duty of the federal government as given by the people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by edweaver 3 years, 8 months ago
          Personally I don't think we need the 2nd Amendment for a right that is ours naturally. The 2nd Amendment was a restriction placed on government by the people for a right they already have.

          I would suggest filtering people who want to become citizens is more important than filtering law abiding people's travel. If people travel across boarders and they break the law, they need to pay the price. And the price should be stiff for non citizens especially for harming American citizens. But if we allow people to become citizens that don't want to assimilate to the values of America, the American citizen is the one paying the price in the devaluation of their country. This holds true for any & every country in my opinion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 3 years, 8 months ago
            Yes, it was a restriction solidified in print by the Bill of Rights to protect the Natural Right of each individual to defend him/her self. Poor wording on my part.

            I agree about the filtering external people wishing to come in more so than those within wishing to travel internally. I'm also very much opposed to national ID and very much for stiffer penalties for harm to US citizens by those "visiting" this country in any capacity prior to deportation.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 8 months ago
      Proper protection of your property rights is part of your natural rights. Being screened to fly in an Airplane by the government is not. Obviously if you own the airplane, you can demand people be screened.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 14
        Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 8 months ago
        I would prefer the airlines provided their own security. The airlines owning their planes have that right and people can choose what airlines they wish. I read a great line on the internet a few days ago - We don't lock our doors at night because we hate everyone outside, but because we love everyone inside.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Eyecu2 3 years, 8 months ago
          While I too would prefer that each airline provide their own security and then allow customers to choose how they desire to fly. I also believe that the Government has a duty to secure the boarders and as it is impractical for an airplane to stop at the boarder for a Customs inspection. It is more reasonable what we currently have in place even as ineffective as it is.

          Maybe we should have 2 levels of security on international flights. The first for Customs and then again for the airline in question. Customs would screen for those undesirables (terrorist and such) and then the airlines could have whatever security they each individually desired.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 8 months ago
            Hello Eyecu2,
            On international flights, Customs could provide a list, pictures and biometrics to whatever agency is providing the security and Customs agents could be on site to take custody after security has identified someone on the list. I am most offended by the excessive scrutiny of citizens flying interstate. I can drive between states without impediment or violation of my rights by the government, but not so if I fly.
            Respectfully,
            O.A.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Eyecu2 3 years, 8 months ago
              OA, I agree with your suggestion and also feel that interstate travel should not be impeded any more than the airline itself decides is necessary. As they own the planes in question it should be up to them, and then the customer can vote with their wallets.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 3 years, 8 months ago
            The Constitution does not stop at the border. The government cannot search, question, or detain people at the border without violating the Constitution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Eyecu2 3 years, 8 months ago
              Sorry but I cannot agree. The Constitution of the United States applies to The United States alone and not the rest of the world. Yes we often impose our will outside of our boarders but honestly we shouldn't.

              As to whether or not the Government has the authority to search, question, or detain people at the border. I agree that it is not explicitly detailed within the Constitution but I would argue that it can be implied via The Preamble by, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Searching incoming people at the boarders especially non-citizens would work towards these promises within The Preamble.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky012 3 years, 8 months ago
      AJAshinoff I think you have misses the point. In your example those passing through have more rights than you. That's not how a Republic works. Each person is like a King, but a persons rights end where another person's begin. You can do what ever you want except infringe on another person's rights. If you say, "Stay out." and someone breaks through the gate to your yard are you willing to pick up a shotgun and protect your rights? This is where your neighbors and friends bring their shotguns and help enforce your rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 3 years, 8 months ago
        I'm not missing the point at all, just disagreeing with the premise of the "right to travel" and pointing out where that right stops. As said before here, the right to travel ends the first time someone puts up a fence. Dale and I have had words about this for a while now. We agree to disagree.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 3 years, 8 months ago
    I believe you are totally correct on this DB. It's my belief, our large government is a direct result of the mistaken practice of making people safe, instead of protecting our natural rights. If they simply stuck to protecting our natural rights our government would be significantly smaller and we would all get to keep more of our property.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mgarbizo1 3 years, 8 months ago
    After briefly reading some of the comments on here, they appear to suggest that more non-citizens (than US citizens) come here with the malicious intent to do harm to US citizens. I ask any of you, how many people born of another country came to America to do harm to its citizens? Not saying the number is zero, but from my research, there are more US citizens that have done harm (acts of terror) to other US citizens than non-citizens have done in recent years. Please correct me if I am wrong about the statistics of acts of terrorism performed by foreign terrorists vs US citizens as committed on American soil. I will say that my research fails in consideration of the failed attempts by terrorists that were successfully prevented by our government and/or other parties as well considering acts of terrorism carried out or prevented in other countries against US citizens.

    With this being said, I would like to point out that the Soros-funded protests that destroy and pillage our small business communities are just as much (if not more) a threat to the safety and preservation of our rights as any foreign threats that we may encounter. Your comments are appreciated, however they may come.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 3 years, 8 months ago
      Me dino clicked on your moniker because it looked new. It is.
      Welcome to The Gulch.
      I'd like to point out that a handful of non-citizens can do very bad things.
      Flying passenger jets into buildings and killing 3,000 people is the most extreme example so far . . . so far . . . so far . . .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ed75 3 years, 8 months ago
    Keeping yourself safe is a personal responsibility, involving an awareness of one's surroundings, knowledge regarding how to successfully interact with those surroundings, (in whatever form) and a philosophical premise that the use of force is only justified in self defense. All other relationships require persuasion and voluntary consent.
    Those who do not, or are unable, (or unwilling) to understand this concept often confuse it with security (as provided by others, typically government) and seem to lack the desire for, or understanding of, personal freedom.
    Security, (feeling safe) is more often than not related to how well one has adapted to, (and has knowledge of) his environment and his personal coping skill set
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky012 3 years, 8 months ago
    One of the long term plans of the corporate gov. we have now has been to offer security in exchange for our freedoms. And it is working very well. In time past you would know everyone who lived on the same block as you. If someone had a problem you would help them out even if you didn't like them very much. You would help them because you knew when the time came and you need help they would come to your aid. The gov. has been inserting itself between us. "You can depend on the gov. to care for you." Implying you don't need your neighbors help. Isolating us from each other and making it easier to control us. So how many of us know who our neighbors are? And would you help them?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 3 years, 8 months ago
    db; Good Post, and timely in my view. Existence exists and life comes with Rights, but only to those that choose to reason and use their rational minds. Giving up one's Rights in the face of fear is not rational or reasoned, particularly when it also includes becoming a slave, either to those that promise you something that's impossible to give you, or to irrational fear.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 3 years, 8 months ago
    Buy a gun and learn how to use it as well as not how to use it.
    That's what we call both freedom and security down here in Alabama.
    Oh, yeah, locking doors can really help.
    And pay attention to who is around you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 3 years, 8 months ago
    The comment that "we have no new vaccines" is obviously from somebody not paying attention. The pipeline of new vax is stuffed and flowing. This is due to a few different reasons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Kittyhawk 3 years, 8 months ago
      I completely agree with Abaco that "no new vaccines" is not an accurate statement of facts, unless what is meant is "no new vaccines this month." Compare the vaccine schedule from the late 1960s to the one administered to children today; there are dozens of new vaccines since the 60s. The HPV vaccine (Gardasil or Cervarix brand names) is only a few years old. The chicken pox and rotavirus vaccines are other fairly recent additions. And Congress appropriated a billion dollars of taxpayer money last session to fund development of a Zika vaccine.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 8 months ago
      Really, I don't think the evidence supports your point of view https://www.aei.org/publication/putti...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ kddr22 3 years, 8 months ago
        I agree as a pediatrician we have not heard of much upcoming in vaccines or new drugs secondary to regulations. There will be a desperate need upcoming for antibiotics to fight the new superbugs that are next to impossible to kill that we have created albeit from antibiotic overuse.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Kittyhawk 3 years, 8 months ago
        This article advocates an inherently contradictory approach to vaccines and to economics. The authors favor the free market in releasing vaccine manufacturers from regulations such as safety standards, yet support government interference in shielding manufacturers from tort liability when their products harm consumers, among other things.

        We shall see the effects this unprincipled, pro-pharmaceutical company type of government policy has on vaccines from this point on. Vaccine makers still have their immunity from being sued for making harmful products, and with the December 2016 passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, they also get the freedom from supposedly onerous safety regulation that they wanted. I tend to agree with the people who are concerned that this imbalanced approach (tampering in the free market only to benefit drug manufacturers and not consumers) is not going to have good results for the consumers. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 years, 8 months ago
          That is the problem when courts and the law do not apply scientific evidence. Plenty of people got rich because of nonscientific claims..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Kittyhawk 3 years, 8 months ago
            There are some bad actors who will lie to win in any type of court case, but do you believe that vaccine manufacturers are uniquely affected, and/or uniquely deserving of protection? No other industry enjoys this protection from product liability -- from responsibility for their inevitable errors or malfeasance -- that I know of.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mgarbizo1 3 years, 8 months ago
    No different than the question, do we prefer to belong to a collective for the safety of belonging to that collective, but a collective that nevertheless requires of us to sacrifice our individual self for the greater good of others.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 3 years, 8 months ago
    Government cannot protect you in prisons which are hell holes of gang violence and drugs. Government cannot protect you from getting shot in half the blocks in major cities. As Hannah Arendt said the origin of totalitarianism is not dictatorships or oligarchies but democracies which make control and servitude legal. Good comment!
    PS don't forget we are in a interglacial warming period and have many hundreds of years before the next glaciation epoch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 years, 8 months ago
    Just to be clear, the SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement, as an arm of government, has no responsibility to keep you safe. It has a constitutional responsibility to defend you, to the best of its abilities, against enemies foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, our government (local, state, and federal) has a tendency to go overboard with defense measures, adopting counterproductive regulations to attempt to keep us free from harm, including that which might be inflicted on us by ourselves. This is why gas cans no longer work, because the vents have been ordered removed to attempt to reduce spillage to zero.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Seer 3 years, 8 months ago
      I've been looking for D-Con, mouse poison. I believe that has been taken off the market, at least in the form I was used to getting. Can't find it anymore. Last time I used it was in 2010.
      It was the most effective way of getting rid of mice, the carriers of disease, that I know of. There were risks, of course, but any parent in her right mind knew how to avoid those risks. Now government has made it "safe" for you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 8 months ago
    considering the FACT that the police paid to protect us located in Berkley ca. did nothing to stop the jackasses last night tells me we deserve neither.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 3 years, 8 months ago
    I grew up and left the safety and security of the nest---when I was 17, my mother basically pushed me out. It was necessary for me to learn the risks and rewards of life, my own life, without her (and my Dad's) interference. And I WANTED to---no safe spaces for me!!
    And now government is taking that on?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 3 years, 8 months ago
    I do believe safety, to a certain extent, a responsible and sane extent, is guaranteed by the American constitution, but only in this way: Provide for the common defense, and ensure domestic tranquility.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 8 months ago
    "If safety is your priority then the government should build big prisons and put everyone in them where they can protect them."
    Yes!
    [Sarcasm]If it saves even one child, then we must do it.[/Sarcasm]
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo