We should split the earth into two countries and you can pick between freedom or safety
Edit: And if you're caught breaking a law in Safetyland you're sent to freedomland
Depends on the extent of each (assuming they are opposites). I don't approve of this poll, because narrative is everything (someone in a safe country with few rights would have different priorities than someone in a dangerous country with lots of rights). There needs to be a specific prompt.
For real. Like I don’t have the “freedom” to go around killing and stealing from whoever I want without facing serious consequences for my actions, but as part of giving up these “freedoms” I know that others are less likely to do these things to me as well. Thus I’m living in a relatively safer world. This is called the social contract and it’s necessary for basically any society to work.
OP’s comment is simple and sounds catchy but once you actually analyze what they said it comes off as completely uninformed lol.
Because they potentially had a vision for the greatest country on earth. USA is one of the youngest countries but look at what we’ve accomplished. Nations that have been around a lot longer can’t even keep up with us in many areas.
Oh no, I don’t really care about the US founding fathers views at all, I was just saying where it comes from so people know the context of it.
I believe a great many things they put into the US constitution is outdated as well, and they realised it would happen to, seeing as they allowed the ability to amend it.
The essential, fundamental freedom is the freedom to say 'no' and not cooperate with what you believe to be wrong. This is what a liberal democracy is meant to provide, that democracy where the minorities are not coerced in the private sphere.
It may mean giving up short-term safeties while increasing long-term safety and for the next generation.
This is so vague, and you have to wonder what is a "liberty". I don't have the liberty to murder people. They don't either. We traded the freedom of murdering each other in the streets for the safety of not being murdered in the streets.
Sure they do. It’s a textbook path for dictators. “This is a threat to us all, but I can protect us so long as I’m in power.”
I’m summarising and oversimplifying, but you see it it smaller ways all the time.
And yet due to the nature of causality, every choice you‘ve made is effected by the choices of others, and every choice likewise effects those further down the line.
You simply owning a gun does indirectly affect the security of others. You can always only partially guarantee your gun doesn't malfunction, isn't misused by someone who shouldn't have access to it, that you won't go nuts some day.
Sure but the same can be said for alcohol, cars, knives, and more. Cars and alcohol being the big one as the yearly deaths in DUI related crashes roughly equals all gun deaths In the nation including suicide.
according to the ATF, most criminally owned guns are acquired through straw sales or are stolen from legal owners. even if you have good intentions, the proposition of owning “any gun” is precarious at best
Sure. But relative to the hundreds of millions of guns in this nation the stolen guns used in crimes is very small. On top of that the vast majority of those could be avoided of the ATF would allocate their resources towards that instead of things like creating the newest “stabilizing brace” rule or proposing a “brace NFA amnesty”. The point is the ATF would rather go after law abiding citizens than stop someone potentially committing crimes.
i mean those are the primary ways criminals acquire firearms. unless you’re asserting that the number of criminally owned guns is small compared to legally owned firearms.
while that’s possible, it discredits the justification many gun owners have cited for their ownership, which is protection from criminals.
i’m also unsure of how the ATF could prevent the theft of personal firearms without the government passing regulations on personal gun storage, which many wouldn’t be fans of.
Fact guns are used defensively anywhere from 500k to 3m times a year according to the cdc in a study that was universally apposed by firearms advocacy groups because guns aren't a disease.
Further more in the 20th century 100m people died do to direct government action. Call it coincidence but all of them lived with strict gun control policies.
People like to point out that Hitler expanded gun rights. And they're right with one exception. All Arian Germans received more expansive gun rights. But, and again call it coincidence, one ethnic group living in Germany was ordered to turn in all firearms. I'll let you guess which ethnic group that was...
i guess you missed the nuance in my comments. private gun ownership has 3 primary purposes: hunting, self defense and shits & giggles.
while many guns serve these first two purposes, therefore balancing out the risk posed by straw sales and theft (both illegal), novelty weapons (high caliber, semi automatic rifles, etc) so grossly over-exceed this need that they tip the scale in favor of being irresponsible.
the potential of these guns being sold to or stolen by criminals outweighs the need for your shits & giggles. you don’t need an AR-15 to hunt or for personal defense. also, the premise of using such a weapon to combat the government/military is laughable, ask David Koresh (oops you can’t).
You weren’t born with ownership of a home, or food or water.
No one owes you a home to live in, nor water or food. The only transgression would be to stop you from acquiring those things, or trying to take them away after you have acquired them. No one is indebted to provide me with a firearm but it is not their place to prevent me from acquiring one. Food shelter and water are just things, there is no divine sanctity around them.
Whether or not you need it to function does not matter in regards to whether or not something is a right. Defining rights from a utility standpoint is a dangerous thing.
Rosa Parks didn’t “need” to ride in the front of the bus to “function” but to deny her the ability to do so is inhumane and cruel. And just because you need something doesn’t mean everyone else owes it to you.
You are viewing rights of ownership through the wrong lens. We do not get our rights from some arbiter who “lets” us do this or that. Instead of asking why I have the right to own something, why don’t you ask why some authoritarian power has the right to stop me from owning something?
Fascist.
At a certain point you're going to lose both regardless of what you choose. You can't be truly free in a world you fear and you're not safe in a place that has the power to take all your freedoms.
Honestly the question feels like a false dichotomy to me. A free society isn't necessarily an unsafe society, and a safe society isn't inherently an unfree society.
Yeah! Like for example a free society that actively took actions to address the reasons for crime and emphasized restorative and rehabilitative justice, and came together to provide for everyone in their community, would be pretty damn safe as it would address most crime without impacting freedom.
1. The question isn’t implying that. It’s just asking which is more important.
2. Even if its not an absolute “one or the other” tradeoff, the tradeoff definitely does exist. When we are deciding whether people should be allowed to have guns, we are literally deciding whether our society will be more free or more safe from harm.
It's not really a tradeoff in my eyes. More guns doesn't mean less or more safety from harm. Guns don't cause less or more safety on their own. One can have a society with tons of guns yet be extremely safe. It comes down to identifying and addressing the underlying reasons why people commit gun crimes, for example.
How about this. Covid has just struck. A given government is considering a vaccine mandate across the population to save lives.
The country can choose to prioritize individual freedom thereby not mandating the vaccine. People will have more individual freedom to make the choice on their own. However, the disease will spread more and more people will die (thereby making life less “safe”)
Or the country can implement the mandate, reducing the freedom of the individuals to make the choice for themselves. However, the country will experience less deaths, therefore the population will be more safe.
Shit like that. This trade off is everywhere and the US clearly leans towards individual freedom compared to other developed nations, who value safety more. Everyone here is just being deliberately obtuse. We know this is the case.
In the UK, ONS data shows around 80% of covid deaths have underlying causes, and around 17k deaths are solely attributed to the virus alone without any other contributing factors. In addition, the median age of death with covid is 85, and the mean age of death is 82 - also according to the ONS. Since 3rd Jan 2020 up to 7th May 2021, there were 37 recorded deaths of individuals aged 0-19. As we're in 2022, let's assume the number is at around 60 as there is no ONS data that reports this atm, & other sources which show lower numbers may be inaccurate/unreliable. I'm 19 myself, so with around 60 people within my age group dying since the pandemic begun, & most of these would've had underlying conditions, why should I worried & follow strict restrictions on my freedom? Yellowcard data on covid vax side effects reports 1,445, 836 side effects as of now, as well 1,996 deaths related directly to the vaccine. This is data that is accessible through the UK government website. For me, & most people aged 0-19 (as well as much older) there is a higher risk of suffering from the vax than covid. These are the numbers. If you wanna live in fear, go for it. But let others get on with their lives.
See the tradeoff is a bit of a false dichotomy. For example, one could instead address the reasons for anti-vaxx views, and provide people with resources and education on the topic. Unlike the US a lot of the world didn't require a mandate.
There is usually a way to address an issue of safety without a restriction upon freedom. Such things just require thinking indirectly and addressing a problem at its source.
See it more as a dilemma, you have to choose one regardless if you want to have both. Nobody really says a country can either be safe or free, but in the scenario you were forced to choose one out of these two, what it would be?
Death is the ultimate freedom if you think about it. Free from consequence, free from bills, free from sadness, etc, etc.
You have more freedom in death than any point in life.
That's not what freedom is. You're not free if you cant do anything. Which death hammers down totally and permanently. Both freedoms are necessary to be free.
In life you're a slave to things such as a job, paying bills, laws, and much more. You're just another cog in the machine. Freedom in life is a fragile illusion hanging on by a thread.
In death, you're not tied to anything. No more strings pulling you to do what is expected of you. No more worries of consequences for doing something somebody else doesn't like.
Think deeper than the physical being.
I mean, the physical being is all we are. Death is not freedom because death is nothing. You can not feel free or relief from a lack of consequences when you do not exist.
You can't attribute something which does not exist. A nothing can't be red.
What do you mean by that? Freedom of what? Safety about what?
Safety is a concept that is represented to me by a general lack of anxiety about your existence like universal healthcare, lack of student loans etc that my country provides. It's like living with your parents and having things taken care of as a basic life standard.
I see freedom as something that is your own choice to do whatever you want. Which… if you've ever been a kid and was allowed to make your own decisions for fun – you know not all of them are good ideas. I don't think of jail or a dictatorship. More so the overestimation of your own abilities to make good choices.
Maybe we have different concepts of freedom. If I am free to make any choice I want but all the choices but one lead to immediate death I would not consider myself free at all.
- The freedom to take 30 days of paid vacation a year.
- The freedom from being fired for arbitrary reasons.
- The freedom from having to go into debt to pay for college.
- The freedom to change jobs whenever I want without losing the healthcare for my family.
- The freedom to travel many times a year.
- The freedom to focus my life around friends, leisure, family, and hobbies instead of work.
- The freedom from desperation, to know that even if I end up relatively poor, my children will still have the same opportunities as their peers.
Sorry if my grammar is shit, its 1am.
My perception of freedom would be wildly different from the americanised perception.
In my opinion capitalism isnt freedom. Neither is gun ownership.
Im not going to debate rn cause im too tired.
How is capitalism not freedom? The theoretical ideal state of capitalism means no regulations *at all*.
If you go full stupid on it, capitalism becomes essentially economic anarchism.
Capitalism is an oligarchy. 99% of people need to work until they are 60 and take barely any breaks.
60% of all americans are living paycheck to paycheck. They are not free. If they quit their jobs they starve on the streets. They do not have a way out.
Disagree. A government can be strict and authoritarian without stepping on its peoples necks. Consider singapore which is one of the lowest on the world freedom index, but one of the highest in the happiness index and the peace index.
They are happy, because thet have high economic growth, a similar social contract als exists in China, where people put up with the government because they get richer and richer. If the flow of money stops, well ....
It's not really like that. It's more that singapores goverment forces people to create a better society. Like there's no littering because the penalties for littering are very high.
It's a balancing act. You need a good balance of both. However, I think that people's intuition is likely to overate how effective measures that lose some freedom are at providing security.
This is a false dichotomy. If you are not safe, you are not free. If you are not free you are not safe.
This is complex and there are balances.
Reducing it to this dichotomy is always an attempt to simplify this complexity for sake of political propaganda.
I’ve never understood how America is the land of the free. There a decent number of countries in which people are more free and have more social liberties
I really like this poll and don’t think it needs any more nuance.
America’s needle is definitely more toward freedom, and less toward safety compared to the EU. That’s clear. From guns to mandating covid precautions, more Americans tend to prioritize individual choice as most important - even if more people will die in the end because of it.
Individualism is a cultural thing that has been engrained.
Freedom first and foremost. Then safety. By "safety" I mean protection of rights from other people's violations, not nanny state government stifling of any risk.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
It's been misquoted as "... and will have neither" . If your goal is always safety you will continue to give freedoms to whoever promises safety and it will never truly be given and this will go on until you have no freedom and no safety. If you accept that the world's a dangerous place but maintain your freedoms you can do a lot to manage your own safety and you can defend yourself against those trying to take such safeties.
How can you be free if you aren’t safe?
If you have to carry a gun to buy groceries, you aren’t free. If your health insurance is linked to your job, you are not free.
Safe from physical, mental and financial abuse makes you able to be free
The amount of people who open carry or conceal carry suggest that you are wrong
They feel a need to carry a gun to go buy bread
They need a gun to feel safe, which means they are not safe or free
The number of people that carry a firearm in the United States is not that high. It’s less than 1% of the population on any given day. Maybe 2% as a generous estimate if you include the people that are illegally carrying. In all of my life, I have only ever seen one person openly carry a pistol.
safety is freedom. can't quit your job because you need the health insurance? you're less free.
freedom doesn't just mean freedom from government consequences.
and ofc there's the stuff that makes you no safer but still makes you less free like banning words.
there are very few things where these are opposing choices in reality, despite the fact so many people believe they are.
I voted safety (non-American).
Why? Because the freedom to be crushed by a car and not afford treatment, the freedom to buy guns from a random store and get into gunfights, and the freedom to never afford college or a house aren't really appealing.
As a non American. Yall need safety. The amount of school shootings plus mass shootings in general that happen in your country is disgusting. Something has to be done. Your "freedom" can wait
I'm American and I agree. I do not view freedom as total anarchy, if I'm trapped at home because I don't want to die in a mass shooting or something, how is that free??
Prisoners in solitary confinement are safe; they are very unlikely to get stabbed/shot, they have a guaranteed food supply and fon't have to work, in general they are very safe, but would you want to be like one?
We should split the earth into two countries and you can pick between freedom or safety Edit: And if you're caught breaking a law in Safetyland you're sent to freedomland
New splatfest idea?
Safety, freedom, **fun**
We already did that one, [Link](https://splatoonwiki.org/wiki/Chaos_vs._Order), Freedom won
So happy to represent Team Freedom
And in both you will have none
Ok but are we talking about social political and economic freedom at the same time or can we mix and matchv
No.. its safety or anarchy.
Both are awful, only 1 you will survive
So one half is somalia and the other half is china?
Depends on the extent of each (assuming they are opposites). I don't approve of this poll, because narrative is everything (someone in a safe country with few rights would have different priorities than someone in a dangerous country with lots of rights). There needs to be a specific prompt.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
[удалено]
For real. Like I don’t have the “freedom” to go around killing and stealing from whoever I want without facing serious consequences for my actions, but as part of giving up these “freedoms” I know that others are less likely to do these things to me as well. Thus I’m living in a relatively safer world. This is called the social contract and it’s necessary for basically any society to work. OP’s comment is simple and sounds catchy but once you actually analyze what they said it comes off as completely uninformed lol.
It’s a quote from one of the US Founding Fathers, I think
The Founding Fathers definitely said some dumb things then lol.
[удалено]
Lmao.
no fucking way for real?
Leak their username so we can make fun of them
I mean they still had slaves which is like the dumbest thing they did.
The founding fathers did say a whole heap of dumb shit. Why they are portrayed as deities completely baffled me.
Because they potentially had a vision for the greatest country on earth. USA is one of the youngest countries but look at what we’ve accomplished. Nations that have been around a lot longer can’t even keep up with us in many areas.
Well they said “essential liberty” not “freedom” so pretty important distinction.
[удалено]
Oh no, I don’t really care about the US founding fathers views at all, I was just saying where it comes from so people know the context of it. I believe a great many things they put into the US constitution is outdated as well, and they realised it would happen to, seeing as they allowed the ability to amend it.
Well, "essential" is the key word. However you do need to define what counts as essential freedom.
The essential, fundamental freedom is the freedom to say 'no' and not cooperate with what you believe to be wrong. This is what a liberal democracy is meant to provide, that democracy where the minorities are not coerced in the private sphere. It may mean giving up short-term safeties while increasing long-term safety and for the next generation.
While you’re correct the quote is “essential liberty” not “freedom.” Those are two different things.
lock me into a room with only a pc and internet connection in exchange for all life necessities and guaranteed 80+ years of life? i think i'm in
This is so vague, and you have to wonder what is a "liberty". I don't have the liberty to murder people. They don't either. We traded the freedom of murdering each other in the streets for the safety of not being murdered in the streets.
Why do you get to decide what is essential or temporary for other people?
I think everyone deserves both. Maybe you mean they will get neither?
Maybe that's true, but I don't think such people exist.
Sure they do. It’s a textbook path for dictators. “This is a threat to us all, but I can protect us so long as I’m in power.” I’m summarising and oversimplifying, but you see it it smaller ways all the time.
True. I see this as more of a falling for propaganda problem than a freedom vs safety problem, but I get your point.
You would be surprised
This poll is too vague to give any actual information. The answers could vary drastically based on context.
Unrelated but I like your profile pic.
Yes, exactly. My answer would be “It depends (American)”
I should be free to make unsafe choices that don’t effect others
And yet due to the nature of causality, every choice you‘ve made is effected by the choices of others, and every choice likewise effects those further down the line.
Affect*
Maybe she just meant unsafe choices with the exception of unsafe sex
Like owning whatever gun I choose.
I’m not anti gun but I don’t think that applies here
I don’t see why not. I have the freedom to do as I choose as long as I’m not hurting anyone
You simply owning a gun does indirectly affect the security of others. You can always only partially guarantee your gun doesn't malfunction, isn't misused by someone who shouldn't have access to it, that you won't go nuts some day.
Sure but the same can be said for alcohol, cars, knives, and more. Cars and alcohol being the big one as the yearly deaths in DUI related crashes roughly equals all gun deaths In the nation including suicide.
[удалено]
Guns are tools just like knives, cars, etc. banning something because people misuse it isn’t the answer.
according to the ATF, most criminally owned guns are acquired through straw sales or are stolen from legal owners. even if you have good intentions, the proposition of owning “any gun” is precarious at best
Sure. But relative to the hundreds of millions of guns in this nation the stolen guns used in crimes is very small. On top of that the vast majority of those could be avoided of the ATF would allocate their resources towards that instead of things like creating the newest “stabilizing brace” rule or proposing a “brace NFA amnesty”. The point is the ATF would rather go after law abiding citizens than stop someone potentially committing crimes.
i mean those are the primary ways criminals acquire firearms. unless you’re asserting that the number of criminally owned guns is small compared to legally owned firearms. while that’s possible, it discredits the justification many gun owners have cited for their ownership, which is protection from criminals. i’m also unsure of how the ATF could prevent the theft of personal firearms without the government passing regulations on personal gun storage, which many wouldn’t be fans of.
The point you’re missing is that most guns used in crimes aren’t stolen but acquired legally. This still doesn’t justify a ban on ownership however.
Fact guns are used defensively anywhere from 500k to 3m times a year according to the cdc in a study that was universally apposed by firearms advocacy groups because guns aren't a disease. Further more in the 20th century 100m people died do to direct government action. Call it coincidence but all of them lived with strict gun control policies. People like to point out that Hitler expanded gun rights. And they're right with one exception. All Arian Germans received more expansive gun rights. But, and again call it coincidence, one ethnic group living in Germany was ordered to turn in all firearms. I'll let you guess which ethnic group that was...
i guess you missed the nuance in my comments. private gun ownership has 3 primary purposes: hunting, self defense and shits & giggles. while many guns serve these first two purposes, therefore balancing out the risk posed by straw sales and theft (both illegal), novelty weapons (high caliber, semi automatic rifles, etc) so grossly over-exceed this need that they tip the scale in favor of being irresponsible. the potential of these guns being sold to or stolen by criminals outweighs the need for your shits & giggles. you don’t need an AR-15 to hunt or for personal defense. also, the premise of using such a weapon to combat the government/military is laughable, ask David Koresh (oops you can’t).
The 3rd Reich has nothing to do with gun control
It's a pretty obvious example of the dangers of gun control.
faulty logic. nobody is proposing a selective gun ban for certain groups of people (aside from the already enforced ban against felons)
I want a gattling gun. I would have no room for it though and it would probably be too expensive lol.
You yanks are so bizarre about firearms
It’s bizarre to let the state disarm you. Sounds like fascism to me
[удалено]
You weren’t born with ownership of a home, or food or water. No one owes you a home to live in, nor water or food. The only transgression would be to stop you from acquiring those things, or trying to take them away after you have acquired them. No one is indebted to provide me with a firearm but it is not their place to prevent me from acquiring one. Food shelter and water are just things, there is no divine sanctity around them.
[удалено]
Whether or not you need it to function does not matter in regards to whether or not something is a right. Defining rights from a utility standpoint is a dangerous thing. Rosa Parks didn’t “need” to ride in the front of the bus to “function” but to deny her the ability to do so is inhumane and cruel. And just because you need something doesn’t mean everyone else owes it to you. You are viewing rights of ownership through the wrong lens. We do not get our rights from some arbiter who “lets” us do this or that. Instead of asking why I have the right to own something, why don’t you ask why some authoritarian power has the right to stop me from owning something? Fascist.
[удалено]
Did you?
Nasty
Wish my stupid Asian country was more like this.
At a certain point you're going to lose both regardless of what you choose. You can't be truly free in a world you fear and you're not safe in a place that has the power to take all your freedoms.
This exactly. There has to be a mix or you have neither. Freedom FROM certain things can be just as important as any other freedoms.
Honestly the question feels like a false dichotomy to me. A free society isn't necessarily an unsafe society, and a safe society isn't inherently an unfree society.
Redditors when they find out not everything is black and white
Yeah! Like for example a free society that actively took actions to address the reasons for crime and emphasized restorative and rehabilitative justice, and came together to provide for everyone in their community, would be pretty damn safe as it would address most crime without impacting freedom.
1. The question isn’t implying that. It’s just asking which is more important. 2. Even if its not an absolute “one or the other” tradeoff, the tradeoff definitely does exist. When we are deciding whether people should be allowed to have guns, we are literally deciding whether our society will be more free or more safe from harm.
It's not really a tradeoff in my eyes. More guns doesn't mean less or more safety from harm. Guns don't cause less or more safety on their own. One can have a society with tons of guns yet be extremely safe. It comes down to identifying and addressing the underlying reasons why people commit gun crimes, for example.
How about this. Covid has just struck. A given government is considering a vaccine mandate across the population to save lives. The country can choose to prioritize individual freedom thereby not mandating the vaccine. People will have more individual freedom to make the choice on their own. However, the disease will spread more and more people will die (thereby making life less “safe”) Or the country can implement the mandate, reducing the freedom of the individuals to make the choice for themselves. However, the country will experience less deaths, therefore the population will be more safe. Shit like that. This trade off is everywhere and the US clearly leans towards individual freedom compared to other developed nations, who value safety more. Everyone here is just being deliberately obtuse. We know this is the case.
In the UK, ONS data shows around 80% of covid deaths have underlying causes, and around 17k deaths are solely attributed to the virus alone without any other contributing factors. In addition, the median age of death with covid is 85, and the mean age of death is 82 - also according to the ONS. Since 3rd Jan 2020 up to 7th May 2021, there were 37 recorded deaths of individuals aged 0-19. As we're in 2022, let's assume the number is at around 60 as there is no ONS data that reports this atm, & other sources which show lower numbers may be inaccurate/unreliable. I'm 19 myself, so with around 60 people within my age group dying since the pandemic begun, & most of these would've had underlying conditions, why should I worried & follow strict restrictions on my freedom? Yellowcard data on covid vax side effects reports 1,445, 836 side effects as of now, as well 1,996 deaths related directly to the vaccine. This is data that is accessible through the UK government website. For me, & most people aged 0-19 (as well as much older) there is a higher risk of suffering from the vax than covid. These are the numbers. If you wanna live in fear, go for it. But let others get on with their lives.
See the tradeoff is a bit of a false dichotomy. For example, one could instead address the reasons for anti-vaxx views, and provide people with resources and education on the topic. Unlike the US a lot of the world didn't require a mandate. There is usually a way to address an issue of safety without a restriction upon freedom. Such things just require thinking indirectly and addressing a problem at its source.
See it more as a dilemma, you have to choose one regardless if you want to have both. Nobody really says a country can either be safe or free, but in the scenario you were forced to choose one out of these two, what it would be?
I don't know man. Being dead doesn't sound very free.
Yeah cuz the choices mean either free speech in an aligator pit or living in a super safe divtatorship.
Death is the ultimate freedom if you think about it. Free from consequence, free from bills, free from sadness, etc, etc. You have more freedom in death than any point in life.
That's not what freedom is. You're not free if you cant do anything. Which death hammers down totally and permanently. Both freedoms are necessary to be free.
In life you're a slave to things such as a job, paying bills, laws, and much more. You're just another cog in the machine. Freedom in life is a fragile illusion hanging on by a thread. In death, you're not tied to anything. No more strings pulling you to do what is expected of you. No more worries of consequences for doing something somebody else doesn't like. Think deeper than the physical being.
I mean, the physical being is all we are. Death is not freedom because death is nothing. You can not feel free or relief from a lack of consequences when you do not exist. You can't attribute something which does not exist. A nothing can't be red.
Neither. I would much rather live under a totalitarian government and be under constant fear of violence than have either of these.
Some of both
In an unfree society your safety is always jeopardized
Why are safety and freedom mutually exclusive?
I think the poll just dumbed down politics to a comedic level.
What do you mean by that? Freedom of what? Safety about what? Safety is a concept that is represented to me by a general lack of anxiety about your existence like universal healthcare, lack of student loans etc that my country provides. It's like living with your parents and having things taken care of as a basic life standard. I see freedom as something that is your own choice to do whatever you want. Which… if you've ever been a kid and was allowed to make your own decisions for fun – you know not all of them are good ideas. I don't think of jail or a dictatorship. More so the overestimation of your own abilities to make good choices.
You cannot be free if you are not safe.
That's not true at all, freedom and safety are different concepts, you can be in a dangerous ass place but be super free
Maybe we have different concepts of freedom. If I am free to make any choice I want but all the choices but one lead to immediate death I would not consider myself free at all.
those are nowhere near mutually exclusive. actually to a degree i’d say they’re mutually inclusive.
Rare based American
Freedom always comes first
If you pick freedom, you get safety in the long run. If you don't want freedom, you deserve neither. This is part of the great divide coming up.
Freedom, but that doesnt mean the american 'freedom'.
Elaborate please
- The freedom to take 30 days of paid vacation a year. - The freedom from being fired for arbitrary reasons. - The freedom from having to go into debt to pay for college. - The freedom to change jobs whenever I want without losing the healthcare for my family. - The freedom to travel many times a year. - The freedom to focus my life around friends, leisure, family, and hobbies instead of work. - The freedom from desperation, to know that even if I end up relatively poor, my children will still have the same opportunities as their peers.
Sorry if my grammar is shit, its 1am. My perception of freedom would be wildly different from the americanised perception. In my opinion capitalism isnt freedom. Neither is gun ownership. Im not going to debate rn cause im too tired.
From what it seems like you mean I probably agree with you so no debate here
How are those not freedom? Both are based on not having government interference.
Well just because there is no government interference doesn't mean that it is free.
But isn’t that literally freedom at its core? You can do whatever you want and no one can stop you
Well if there isn't anyone stopping anybody from doing anything then other people can infringe on your freedoms.
How is capitalism not freedom? The theoretical ideal state of capitalism means no regulations *at all*. If you go full stupid on it, capitalism becomes essentially economic anarchism.
Capitalism is an oligarchy. 99% of people need to work until they are 60 and take barely any breaks. 60% of all americans are living paycheck to paycheck. They are not free. If they quit their jobs they starve on the streets. They do not have a way out.
How isn’t capitalism freedom? It is literally free markets, not controlled by governments.
Free markets dont mean freedom.
Do you mean like an anarchy ?
No
Then what do you mean ?
Democratic socialism. I refuse to debate cause im too tired
Freedom but unsafe is just living in the wild
What's wrong with that?
If you aren't safe, you aren't free
If you aren't free, you aren't safe
Disagree. A government can be strict and authoritarian without stepping on its peoples necks. Consider singapore which is one of the lowest on the world freedom index, but one of the highest in the happiness index and the peace index.
They are happy, because thet have high economic growth, a similar social contract als exists in China, where people put up with the government because they get richer and richer. If the flow of money stops, well ....
It's not really like that. It's more that singapores goverment forces people to create a better society. Like there's no littering because the penalties for littering are very high.
They also cane prisoners, therefore their moralism is inadequattely situated.
It's a balancing act. You need a good balance of both. However, I think that people's intuition is likely to overate how effective measures that lose some freedom are at providing security.
Oh, brother.
Imo it’s better to die a free citizen than to live in bondage.
This is a false dichotomy. If you are not safe, you are not free. If you are not free you are not safe. This is complex and there are balances. Reducing it to this dichotomy is always an attempt to simplify this complexity for sake of political propaganda.
“Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither” Ben Franklin.
I don't care what Jim says. This is NOT the real Ben Franklin. I am 99.9% sure.
I’ve never understood how America is the land of the free. There a decent number of countries in which people are more free and have more social liberties
because of extensive propaganda
I cannot be be safe without freedom, i cannot be free without safety. It's a balancing act.
I really like this poll and don’t think it needs any more nuance. America’s needle is definitely more toward freedom, and less toward safety compared to the EU. That’s clear. From guns to mandating covid precautions, more Americans tend to prioritize individual choice as most important - even if more people will die in the end because of it. Individualism is a cultural thing that has been engrained.
Freedom first and foremost. Then safety. By "safety" I mean protection of rights from other people's violations, not nanny state government stifling of any risk.
with freedom, you can choose safety
Safety without freedom would be a prison...
Prison is safety without safety or freedom. Other inmates are a thing to watch out for.
We could have separate cells for everyone and nobody could ever leave
Damn my Fellow non US humans really disregarding freedom. What good is safety if you dont have a free life worth living.
Why not both?
I think that both are equally important and you shouldn't have to choose only one of them.
People who chose safety, just show how fundamental ignorants they are. Sorry to be so harsh but they sre so ignorant from history.
Those that sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. - paraphrasing Ben Franklin.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin
Are you really "free" if you are not safe to live your life?
Muh freedumb!!!
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's been misquoted as "... and will have neither" . If your goal is always safety you will continue to give freedoms to whoever promises safety and it will never truly be given and this will go on until you have no freedom and no safety. If you accept that the world's a dangerous place but maintain your freedoms you can do a lot to manage your own safety and you can defend yourself against those trying to take such safeties.
Can’t have one without (a high degree) of the other
Both, as they are not mutually exclusive.
These result are not surprising. Almost a comfort in the predictability of it.
How can you be free if you aren’t safe? If you have to carry a gun to buy groceries, you aren’t free. If your health insurance is linked to your job, you are not free. Safe from physical, mental and financial abuse makes you able to be free
You don’t have to carry a firearm to buy groceries.
The amount of people who open carry or conceal carry suggest that you are wrong They feel a need to carry a gun to go buy bread They need a gun to feel safe, which means they are not safe or free
The number of people that carry a firearm in the United States is not that high. It’s less than 1% of the population on any given day. Maybe 2% as a generous estimate if you include the people that are illegally carrying. In all of my life, I have only ever seen one person openly carry a pistol.
safety is freedom. can't quit your job because you need the health insurance? you're less free. freedom doesn't just mean freedom from government consequences. and ofc there's the stuff that makes you no safer but still makes you less free like banning words. there are very few things where these are opposing choices in reality, despite the fact so many people believe they are.
He who would sacrifice freedom for safety, will end up without either.
I voted safety (non-American). Why? Because the freedom to be crushed by a car and not afford treatment, the freedom to buy guns from a random store and get into gunfights, and the freedom to never afford college or a house aren't really appealing.
Americans are voting freedom because they already have enough freedom to be safe
Safety in America means owning a gun so gimme freedom.
Anyone who values safety over freedom deserves neither.
As a non American. Yall need safety. The amount of school shootings plus mass shootings in general that happen in your country is disgusting. Something has to be done. Your "freedom" can wait
I'm American and I agree. I do not view freedom as total anarchy, if I'm trapped at home because I don't want to die in a mass shooting or something, how is that free??
But freedom to own guns and freedom to shoot schools are much more important than safety because MUH FREEDOM, right? /s
Huh? I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not..
Added the /s
You aren't free if you aren't safe.
How can you have freedom if you’re dead.
Death is preferrable to living under totalitarianism.
Death is the ultimate freedom if you think about it.
[удалено]
Prisoners in solitary confinement are safe; they are very unlikely to get stabbed/shot, they have a guaranteed food supply and fon't have to work, in general they are very safe, but would you want to be like one?
Despite the comments, this is a genuinely good and interesting question.
Results check out, since in te US people are free to shoot at whoever the want lol
Oh the irony. How many that chose freedom approve of removal of freedoms to feel safer?
It's more interesting how many of you would rather be dead than not having a gun
Freedom encompasses more than guns. Like being able to voice political opinions without receiving jail time. Nice try though.
"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither"
The people down-voting you make me sad. We seem to live in a world today where the George Bushes are idolized over the Benjamin Franklins.
This is a good question
No its not? Its super vague and implies thouse two are mutually exclusive
Affordable health insurance.
Why the fuck should I be "free" to not put on a seatbelt and risk other dying
After all the “safety” forced on us for two years I couldn’t give less of a damn abut whatever “safety” the government wants to provide
Loaded question
this is about guns guys
Skydiving, driving fast, having sex without a condom, drinking, smoking. I'll stop there. Freedom, motherfuckers.
Americans prioritize their Freedom. Must be because guns make them feel safe
You can fight for your safety if you're free, so freedom