Jump to content
darkrecon

Freedom Vs. Safety

Recommended Posts

What do you guys think about the statement that freedom is necessary for safety ie. guns can be used to protect oneself, freedom to protest prevents violent insurrections, etc.

 

If you guys can provide any examples where increasing "freedom" has actually increased "safety" it would be great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^This is one hell of a philosophical debate that's centuries old.  An easy example of where freedom has enhanced safety is that freedom from search/seizure w/o a warrant leads to me being safe® from cops busting in my door whenever they feel like it and busting my door down.  It can also be argued that increasing freedom leads to less likeliness of a revolt/rebellion(Fed DA lol) so that technically increases safety.  

 

This is a good topic and i'm interested to see where this thread might go

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to go big and stretch it a little: the economic-freedom capitalism is built upon has enabled the U.S. to sustain one of the largest and most powerful armies in the history of the world, insuring the safety of Americans.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to go big and stretch it a little: the economic-freedom capitalism is built upon has enabled the U.S. to sustain one of the largest and most powerful armies in the history of the world, insuring the safety of Americans.

 

How does the ability for entrepreneurs to start their own businesses and compete for consumers bolster our military? I feel like taxes and extremely nationalistic propaganda are better explanations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 Ways:

  • Academic Freedom (scientific discovery/health research)
  • Freedom of Press (accountability of our government & governments around the world)
  • Market Place of Ideas
  • Freedom enables innovation. Innovation enables products that make us safer (for instance safer cars)
  • Over-regulation criminalizes the common citizen. Undermines respect for the law and government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It can also be argued that increasing freedom leads to less likeliness of a revolt/rebellion(Fed DA lol) so that technically increases safety.  

Making it less plausible/possible to stage meaningful revolutionary political action... is a good thing? Thinking about it now, it kinda depends. Do you mean that the lessened chance of 'revolt' in and of itself is good, or that there will be no incentive for the revolt to occur by virtue of increasing individual liberties? I think the "increase in freedoms" in that context depends on what freedoms are being increased. Violent or at least revolutionary political action might actually be instigated by certain freedoms (to deal the law w/o mediation of the state or a third party for instance, or giving everyone and their child a loaded weapon - a more simplistic caricature of what I'm getting at).

 

i like this topic now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Empirically, I think the literature says that revolutions happen when people's expectations rise but then are thwarted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what you mean by safety.  In many ways, the external freedoms that we have right now, freedom of religion and the like, are merely concretizations of abstract concepts like safety from oppression or the safety to includes one's own discourse into the social dialogue.  Freedom is meant, to a certain extent, to be safety, although a more abstract notion of safety than bodily integrity.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm operating under the assumption that this question is intended for a debate topic, instead of as a general question intended to provoke discussion.

A warning to OP - don't conflate different relationships between freedom and safety, leverage topic specificity as much as possible. There might be really great arguments as to why guns are a form of freedom that promotes safety, as you use in your example. But those don't matter to the debate, only the relationship between the specific type of freedom in the resolution and the specific type of safety in the resolution matter. Basically, don't make the fallacy that X is a kind of safety, X -> Y, therefore all kinds of safety -> Y. I get the impression that this might be a possibility, based on some of what you've said and some of what other people have responded with in this thread.
 

It depends on what you mean by safety.  In many ways, the external freedoms that we have right now, freedom of religion and the like, are merely concretizations of abstract concepts like safety from oppression or the safety to includes one's own discourse into the social dialogue.  Freedom is meant, to a certain extent, to be safety, although a more abstract notion of safety than bodily integrity.

 

One difference that I think exists: you can be free without exercising that freedom, but you can't really be safe without exercising that safety. Safety is about results and things that actually happen, freedom is about possibilities. Does that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One difference that I think exists: you can be free without exercising that freedom, but you can't really be safe without exercising that safety. Safety is about results and things that actually happen, freedom is about possibilities. Does that make sense?

 

You can be safe from certain things, such as oppression or poverty, and that would be equivalent to a negative freedom.  It's really a conflation of positive and negative freedom.  Positive freedom is freedom to act in a certain way, while negative freedom is freedom from a type of treatment or action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying about the distinction between positive and negative freedom, but the issue I'm trying to raise is whether an identical distinction can be made in terms of positive and negative safety. Safety is always about avoiding suboptimal outcomes, it's never about allowing for multiple different kinds of outcomes, like freedom sometimes does. Safety with regard to X implies DEFINITELY not X, freedom with regard to X allows for wiggle room.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...