Social Essay

[Instant-Karma]

so any thoughts on this topic?

 

"to what extent should the government restrict the freedoms and liberties of citizents in the name of national security?"

 

any ideas anyone?

[supercanuk]

Those who would give up their freedom for protection deserve neither.

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

I post here to waste time, not do your homework.

[Ruettiger]

I remember this essay. We had to write this one in an hour. I got 97% on it. Good luck!

[TheKwas]

I suggest adding a "r".

[Disestabulistic]

I just read this in a book, and I think it is very true, only sort of realyed though: Anyone who tries to attain a position of power is by default unfit to rule.

[deverstein]

that is a good point, but then what? you have to put someone there to rule? and they cant want it

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

Philosopher king.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Those who would give up their freedom for protection deserve neither.

So we should then all have the freedom to own nuclear weapons in our backyards, instead of retaining that restriction for all of our own protection?

 

What u say doesn't make sense. We give up many freedoms & privacy in the name of protection, like we give personal information to the gov't and police etc. ...Unless you are an anarchist, which then it would be a valid opinion i guess.

 

- and to the person who created this thread. That is a personal question of opinion. Your teacher is asking you at what point to YOU draw the line between national security/protection & giving up some freedoms. If any of us gave you our opinion to use, it would totally nullify the point of your assignment and you wouldn't learn anything except how to spin off others' opinions as your own.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Moonlight_Graham

[TheKwas]

you have to put someone there to rule?

You do?

 

The masses can't take care of themselves through co-operatives, syndicates and communes?

[supercanuk]

Those who would give up their freedom for protection deserve neither.

So we should then all have the freedom to own nuclear weapons in our backyards, instead of retaining that restriction for all of our own protection?

 

What u say doesn't make sense. We give up many freedoms & privacy in the name of protection, like we give personal information to the gov't and police etc. ...Unless you are an anarchist, which then it would be a valid opinion i guess.

 

- and to the person who created this thread. That is a personal question of opinion. Your teacher is asking you at what point to YOU draw the line between national security/protection & giving up some freedoms. If any of us gave you our opinion to use, it would totally nullify the point of your assignment and you wouldn't learn anything except how to spin off others' opinions as your own.

A ) I am an anarchist

B ) We must put this statement into a little bit of perspective. I am simply quoting Ben Franklin, however not entirely, and i did not give context which is again, my fault. Quote:

Benjamin Franklin-

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

Edited September 30, 2005 by supercanuk

[Disestabulistic]

that is a good point, but then what? you have to put someone there to rule? and they cant want it

In the book, the person who rules the universe lives in a shack on a dead planet with nothing but a cat, a table, a bed, a chair, a pencil, and some paper. Every so often, representatives come and ask him questions. He answers as he sees fit. he has no idea he rules the universe. he is unsure that anything exists outside his door.

[TheKwas]

Hahahahaha

 

Hitcherhiker's guide to the Universe, CLASSIC!

[Disestabulistic]

Hahahahaha

 

Hitcherhiker's guide to the Universe, CLASSIC!

I'm glad at least someone recognized it.