Is giving up some of your freedoms a fair price to pay to live in a secure society? Narrated by Harry Shearer. Scripted by Nigel Warburton.
From the BBC Radio 4 series – A History of Ideas. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04bwydw
A History of Ideas is a new radio series about life’s big questions, with Melvyn Bragg chairing discussions about beauty, freedom and justice (among other things). http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofideas
This project is made in partnership with The Open University http://www.open.edu/openlearn/historyofideas and the animations were created by Cognitive.
BBC Radio 4
Source
Well the freedom vs security argument is that both is needed and only the middle ground is needed.
aristoteles said: "Who prefers security instead of liberty, is a justified slave"
(not sure if i translated it grammatically correct)
And that's why there's illuminati
Most people are inherently good but not all people.
It takes only a few to fuck things up for the rest of society – a society should have the freedom to chop their legs out from under them.
It's to do with passing on your genes – security always trumps freedom – Iraq used to be secure until the Americans brought them freedom – now look at the place – 12 years on and they don't even have a stable electricity supply – death stalks the land.
It'd be dog eat dog, marshall law, people are inherently good but we are programmed to survive by any means necessary!!
It would be awesome.
Anarchy is the only answer.
"The only way to live sensibly is without rules" – the Joker 😀
The art of fighting without fighting – Bruce Lee
King eh? Well, I didn't vote you! How 'bout a social contract that merely commits to the non-aggression principle?
Beautiful illustration and message. Thanks for sharing
Pretty much the difference between USA and China nowadays. In the US you have so many freedoms but you can be a victim of a mass shooting any time. In China you have an overwhelmingly powerful government with not so many personal freedoms (arguably) but the country is extremely safe
excuse my language but havin a choice between a shit sandwich with crusts or one without isnt much of a choice if u ask me.
im lost as to why if BBC4s attempt is to discuss the big life Qs such as freedom, particularly as all other human rights and civil liberties are born out of that very concept why would you reduce such a vital topic down to absolute freedom, infact pure anarchism as you illustrated it on the one extreme and on the other an all powerful state/crown that whilst they offer security at the cost of personal freedom, they can in no way guarantee increased security and will not relinquish the power they enjoy from a peoples being less free, infact theyll come for it all…they always have and still do today. (terror threats from abroad and more recently from within…loan wolf attackers= need to snoop at everybodies private personal data).
the concept of freedom is about the individual, about each person capable of making meaningful decisions. what religion to follow, what views they hold, whether to communicate them. to marry have children. healthcare,education or even whether to put illegal substances into ur body.
in particular it refers to the individual right to live the way u want and do whatever u want aslong as it doesnt encroach on the rights of others. this is known as the non aggression principle. you dont impose your behaviours on others by force and vice versa.
a voluntarist society operating within a libertarian political and economic system.(austrian economics would replace the debt based keynesian economics that has by its very design kept a population in eternal serfdom and rendered its democracies as nothin more than banks personal atms. due to the keynsian economic model, the belief that central banks can borrow paper money beyond the realms of what the government collects in revenue, that the money supply can be inflated and circulated throughout economy, repeated over and over, with no way of being able to repay this national debt nevermind the inretest payments, nations quickly find themselves in a debt/borrow cycle now impossible to ever repay. the need to continue expanding the currency supply makes the decayed value of said money inevitable. for eg the US Fed set up in 1913, in less than 100 yrs destroyed the value of the dollar by over 90%.
the role of government would be limited to carrying out set functions, predominantly the legal system and policy creation along with control of the nations money creation and wealth supply and subsequent budget requirements nationally.(this us how a nation can be debt free…ban usary all together). in addition to this due to the global nature of the world today with the net and trade agreements there would likely be a demand for a government role here too. one reigned in by predefined limits in policies like foreign policy where it is mandated by the citizenry that a non interventionist approach be adopted and the military too is governed and organised soley to defend the nation unless declared otherwise by the electorate. NO ENTANGLING ALLIANCES!!!
what i have discussed here is still very basic interms of grasping the complexity of freedom within a society. the pathetic presentation u offer in ur clip is disgraceful. some may say lazy but i know better that.
the open university well im hugely disappointed.
recently i have become aware of the overwhelming dominance liberal ideologs have established in the social sciences and in the open university faculties. apparently in most higher ed facilities nowadays. ive known the BBC stopped being impartial a long long time ago.
what has surprised me is both agancies have put their names to such an incomplete piece of work…the level of intellectual dishonesty on display here is shocking. it should call anyones academic standing into question at best.
I cannot fathom that even after witnessing all the horrible shit in this world, some people actually believe that if your remove all rules, people will naturally behave nicely to each other because 'reason'.
Without doubt, this is the most childish, naive ideology I have ever come across. At least people who believe in magic and religion have no proof to the contrary, but even WITH rules, humans behave abominably to one another. It truly is the ideology of people who have been protected by civilisation for so long that they now have wild fantasies about what it would be like without it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but anarchism has ruled many times in history. What happened was exactly what you would expect. Not much – just violence, darkness and more violence.
Freedom please
Im going to put a complete end to this freedom vs security debate right now!!! You know who has full and complete security??? do you hu huh huh well im going to answer that right now and the answer will end your want for security in a heart beat. PRISONERS!!!! do you want to be a prisoner!?!?! I didnt think so, "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither!"
and then comes jean-jacques Rousseau , to solve the last one with his book the social contract
like my parents say with everything there is a balance and I think this is no exception
Freedom>Security
Freedom at any cost? YES. Freedom at ANY cost.
What kind of Freedom is it which kills?
Once everyone is benevolent, rational and has good intentions to coexist is freedom okay. For now though, we humans are not that. Most of us are irrational egotistical animals who will use others as stepping Stones for our own gain as things are now.
security and freedom are right wing without equality and only freedom and equality together can produce security. The libertarian left is the only school of politics with both freedom and equality in play. No equality can exist on either right and no freedom can exist on neither authoritarian. No security can exist on the libertarian right. Libertarian left is the only section which has both equality and freedom, which are a necessity in producing true security. We should take a lesson from my analysis and do politics like that.
Freedom thanks , as it's not security , it's Totalitarianism . It's to protect the elite and no one else.
hobbs was retarded
Freedom seems to mean different things to different people. I 100% support freedom for someone to pursue their dreams or live life how they wish. But there is a threshold that often does require law to maintain. Most "free" nations set that threshold at if it will have a negative impact on another's own freedom (because what people consider acceptable behavior in a free society will clash). This is why a homogeneous culture is ideal for a free nation, it keeps in-fighting to a minimum, otherwise you need the state to enforce it, at which point freedom itself starts slipping away.
We need to be clearer and more specific. What is freedom? What is security? There are many ways to have both. Like in a republican, capitalist system with freedom of speech. That's very free! Laws against murder grant MORE freedom. Murder takes away the freedom to live, and laws punishing murderers prevent that.
Some laws grant good, others grant bad. If you have good laws, that's free enough!
The government does not exist to inhibit our freedoms. It exists to protect our right to live and our right property. You may not have the freedom to kill, but you also have the freedom to not be killed.
“Humanity is finally ready to sacrifice its freedom to gain its security”
Whoa, looking cool Joker!
Oppressive government is more to be feared than wild tigers