Smallc Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Far better to have partial liberty instead of waiting for a complete peace. Why are you allowed to have partial liberty and I have to wait for complete peace? Wouldn't it be better to have partial liberty and partial peace, like our countries do right now? Didn't you just give up your entire argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Why are you allowed to have partial liberty and I have to wait for complete peace? Wouldn't it be better to have partial liberty and partial peace, like our countries do right now? Didn't you just give up your entire argument? No....liberty is much more flexible than peace. I think you have given up on yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 No....liberty is much more flexible than peace. I think you have given up on yours. I was never arguing for either point. Liberty in its pure form is no more flexible than peace. There is no reason to think that it would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 I was never arguing for either point. Liberty in its pure form is no more flexible than peace. There is no reason to think that it would be. Maybe.....but abortion rights (liberty?) certainly aren't peace, as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Maybe.....but abortion rights (liberty?) certainly aren't peace, as an example. That depends on your definition of life. I don't for a minute think that pure peace is possible. Pure liberty may be possible, but I don't think it would be practical. A combination of the two always seems to be the best solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 That depends on your definition of life. I don't for a minute think that pure peace is possible. Pure liberty may be possible, but I don't think it would be practical. A combination of the two always seems to be the best solution. But that isn't the question at hand.....the answer is obvious (for me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 But that isn't the question at hand.....the answer is obvious (for me). And for me, there is no good answer. For me, the choice is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 And for me, there is no good answer. For me, the choice is impossible. Very well..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Not true....liberty exists today in many places, without peace. Peace is way overrated. Liberty without peace is the tyranny of the majority. Peace without liberty is oppression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 (edited) Liberty without peace is the tyranny of the majority. Peace without liberty is oppression. This is exactly the point. But would you not rather be able to live in peace without freedoms than to have complete freedom to live in the horrors of a society of anarchy and chaos? It's tough to consider what one would give up their freedoms for, but I think peace is a reasonable trade. For instance, people in Iraq were content to live under the tyranny of Saddam because he brought peace to the nation. Without him there, the country is in complete shambles, but at least everyone has freedoms now. That may not be the best example because they never had complete peace, nor are they completely liberated now. But do you get my point? Edited November 28, 2008 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 This is exactly the point. But would you not rather be able to live in peace without freedoms than to have complete freedom to live in the horrors of a society of anarchy and chaos? It's tough to consider what one would give up their freedoms for, but I think peace is a reasonable trade. For instance, people in Iraq were content to live under the tyranny of Saddam because he brought peace to the nation. Without him there, the country is in complete shambles, but at least everyone has freedoms now. That may not be the best example because they never had complete peace, nor are they completely liberated now. But do you get my point? Death does provide both and I would prefer death over tyranny or oppression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 28, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 (edited) Death does provide both and I would prefer death over tyranny or oppression. Death is not a choice, it's the inevitability of life. Besides, that's the point. You're supposed to prefer death over either option. That's what makes the question so difficult to answer. Edited November 28, 2008 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Peace v. Liberty? Trick question. Neither of these will ever really exist in this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 This is exactly the point. But would you not rather be able to live in peace without freedoms than to have complete freedom to live in the horrors of a society of anarchy and chaos? I kind of like anarchy. We have plenty of chaos in our world. I live in Canada, things are peaceful here, and also, I have plenty of liberty. So you can have both. If you really want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterDC Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 (edited) I would choose peace. That is the main difference between us Canadians and the "Americans"; while the American system focuses on individual liberties, we focus on peace, order and good government (as put by Pierre Berton). To ensure peace and equality, one would need to install a larger government. On the other hand, to enforce individual liberty, one would have to decentralize the government. On extreme levels, "peace" would bring totalitarianism and "liberty" would bring anarchy. First of all, an anarchy will inevitably result in a power vacuum; the biggest man would win. This will create some form of government, so I must say that a true anarchy is quite impossible. However, for the sake of discourse, I will continue with my argument. As Thomas Hobbes puts it, the unmotivated individual inherently has selfish desires. We can see this with the "fat cat CEO's" who sit at the top making decisions for themselves and their corporations, not for the general public. With the abstract concept of government, human beings are able to adhere to collective values, principles and beliefs; helping to ensure a more civil society. Ideally, the government is bound by duty to protect its citizens in matters economic, social, political and military. With less government, we are to rely on the mere goodwill of the fellow citizens. As stated before, on a general sense, human beings are naturally individualistic beings - surely we cannot rely our collective security on that. Of course, either extreme is undesirable. However, if I had to emphasis one over the other, I would place my opinion upon the welfare of peace. EDIT: The power vacuum within an anarchy would inevitably oppress the less able inhabitants. With this in mind, and the addition of the fact that there would be no sense of binding duty, the result would lack security, peace and liberty. Edited November 29, 2008 by LesterDC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 Peace is too broad a term. Think of Zimbabwe... no involvement in international wars, but far from peaceful internally. If there must be a cause and effect, I think peace is a result of liberty, not the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterDC Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 (edited) Peace is too broad a term. Think of Zimbabwe... no involvement in international wars, but far from peaceful internally. If there must be a cause and effect, I think peace is a result of liberty, not the other way around. To me, I took peace as an internal thing. However, as someone said before, they are codependent Edited November 30, 2008 by LesterDC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reasonoverpassion Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Peace hands down. Conduct this poll in Iraq. I think peace would also win hands down. Without peace and security people cannot live. It is a prerequisite for everything else, a functioning economy and a functioning political and social system. Liberty comes later and is outgrowth of these things. Most Chinese have been willing to sacrifce liberty for peace until now because they fear chaos so much. The past 20 years are the first time the Chinese have been free of chaos in living memory. Score one for Nicolo, I also beleive he was talking of "civil peace" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 To me, I took peace as an internal thing.However, as someone said before, they are codependent At first I thought of it as externally and I chose peace in the poll. Then I considered it in a broader sense, as in both externally and internally, and I realised it's not as easy as I thought. Which would you choose... Iraq (freedom, no peace) or Zimbabwe (peace, no freedom)? Or better yet, think of Iraq pre-invasion (peace, no freedom) or present-day Iraq (freedom, no peace). On a personal level the former (pre-invasion) is better in the sense that conforming would ensure personal safety. On a national level, at least there's hope for the latter (post-invasion) whereas there was none before. Both are pretty awful in their own way. I honestly don't know which I'd choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Peace v. Liberty?Trick question. Neither of these will ever really exist in this world. That's why it's in the political philosophy section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 I kind of like anarchy. We have plenty of chaos in our world. I live in Canada, things are peaceful here, and also, I have plenty of liberty. So you can have both. If you really want to. Of course you CAN have both. It's a philosophical question based on the beliefs of Machiavelli. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 I would choose peace. That is the main difference between us Canadians and the "Americans"; while the American system focuses on individual liberties, we focus on peace, order and good government (as put by Pierre Berton). To ensure peace and equality, one would need to install a larger government. On the other hand, to enforce individual liberty, one would have to decentralize the government. On extreme levels, "peace" would bring totalitarianism and "liberty" would bring anarchy. First of all, an anarchy will inevitably result in a power vacuum; the biggest man would win. This will create some form of government, so I must say that a true anarchy is quite impossible. However, for the sake of discourse, I will continue with my argument. As Thomas Hobbes puts it, the unmotivated individual inherently has selfish desires. We can see this with the "fat cat CEO's" who sit at the top making decisions for themselves and their corporations, not for the general public. With the abstract concept of government, human beings are able to adhere to collective values, principles and beliefs; helping to ensure a more civil society. Ideally, the government is bound by duty to protect its citizens in matters economic, social, political and military. With less government, we are to rely on the mere goodwill of the fellow citizens. As stated before, on a general sense, human beings are naturally individualistic beings - surely we cannot rely our collective security on that. Of course, either extreme is undesirable. However, if I had to emphasis one over the other, I would place my opinion upon the welfare of peace. EDIT: The power vacuum within an anarchy would inevitably oppress the less able inhabitants. With this in mind, and the addition of the fact that there would be no sense of binding duty, the result would lack security, peace and liberty. Thank you for "getting" it. At the root of the question is the nature of individuals and how a person views people. If one views the nature of human beings as primarily selfish and unethical, then peace would likely be their choice. For someone that views humanity as altruistic and primarily selfless, then liberty would be their choice. Of course, in my opinion each individual is some combination of the two; however, I find the question interesting and I think it's useful in seeing how a person views humankind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Peace hands down.Conduct this poll in Iraq. I think peace would also win hands down. Without peace and security people cannot live. It is a prerequisite for everything else, a functioning economy and a functioning political and social system. Liberty comes later and is outgrowth of these things. Most Chinese have been willing to sacrifce liberty for peace until now because they fear chaos so much. The past 20 years are the first time the Chinese have been free of chaos in living memory. Score one for Nicolo, I also beleive he was talking of "civil peace" You're right, it is about civil peace. I should have made that clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 You're right, it is about civil peace. I should have made that clearer. Harrassment of the indiviudal by governmental means is a breach of personal peace - as long as you are being irritated by government into a state of focusless...then you really don't have the where with all to find or make liberty. Peace Is Liberty. Liberty is Peace..a slave is under coersive duress...and has no peace...so if you you give up your rights, it will always be at quiet war with those you gave them too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 Civil peace, Oleg. Having personal safety without the threat of war, but having no liberties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.