"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

Ben Franklin is quoted saying that, or something very similar, and what his message is is obvious.

However, I never completely understood why people think that.

Do I think safety is important? Of course.

Do I think it is more important than freedom? Well, I don't know.

What do you think TSC?

What does this have to do with TSC?

I think that freedom is more important than security (unless the security was for a very good reason).

SupaSEGA wrote:What does this have to do with TSC?

It doesn't have to involve TSC if it's placed in Random.

Zez wrote:

SupaSEGA wrote:What does this have to do with TSC?

It doesn't have to involve TSC if it's placed in Random.

Although this is a very important political topic that TSC could benefit from discussing, as it might help us with our leadership strategies sometime in the future.

The exact quote, as far as Wikiquote can tell, is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What that means to me is that no matter what is happening in the world around us, we must never cease to live freely, even amid a massive crisis (case in point: "Invasion USA" featuring Chuck Norris).

Phantom wrote:The exact quote, as far as Wikiquote can tell, is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What that means to me is that no matter what is happening in the world around us, we must never cease to live freely, even amid a massive crisis (case in point: "Invasion USA" featuring Chuck Norris).

You know, that version of the quote though is quite more curious. The way it's written it leaves a massive hole: while it's bad to sacrifice freedom for some temporary safety, doing so for permanent or a massive amount isn't necessarily opposed, at least in terms of the quote. Perhaps he was just trying to be fancy with his words, but that way just leaves an opening.

The Freedom Fighter wrote:

Phantom wrote:The exact quote, as far as Wikiquote can tell, is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What that means to me is that no matter what is happening in the world around us, we must never cease to live freely, even amid a massive crisis (case in point: "Invasion USA" featuring Chuck Norris).

You know, that version of the quote though is quite more curious. The way it's written it leaves a massive hole: while it's bad to sacrifice freedom for some temporary safety, doing so for permanent or a massive amount isn't necessarily opposed, at least in terms of the quote. Perhaps he was just trying to be fancy with his words, but that way just leaves an opening.

Define massive. Unless you never leave your high security house or your super expensive armored car, It will always be temporary safety.

Super Racer Z wrote:

The Freedom Fighter wrote:

Phantom wrote:The exact quote, as far as Wikiquote can tell, is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What that means to me is that no matter what is happening in the world around us, we must never cease to live freely, even amid a massive crisis (case in point: "Invasion USA" featuring Chuck Norris).

You know, that version of the quote though is quite more curious. The way it's written it leaves a massive hole: while it's bad to sacrifice freedom for some temporary safety, doing so for permanent or a massive amount isn't necessarily opposed, at least in terms of the quote. Perhaps he was just trying to be fancy with his words, but that way just leaves an opening.

Define massive. Unless you never leave your high security house or your super expensive armored car, It will always be temporary safety.

Massive as in Haven City.

The Freedom Fighter wrote:

Super Racer Z wrote:

The Freedom Fighter wrote:

Phantom wrote:The exact quote, as far as Wikiquote can tell, is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What that means to me is that no matter what is happening in the world around us, we must never cease to live freely, even amid a massive crisis (case in point: "Invasion USA" featuring Chuck Norris).

You know, that version of the quote though is quite more curious. The way it's written it leaves a massive hole: while it's bad to sacrifice freedom for some temporary safety, doing so for permanent or a massive amount isn't necessarily opposed, at least in terms of the quote. Perhaps he was just trying to be fancy with his words, but that way just leaves an opening.

Define massive. Unless you never leave your high security house or your super expensive armored car, It will always be temporary safety.

Massive as in Haven City.

Haven City wasn't exactly a secure city though, nor was it free. Or do I need to mention the Baron's allowance of Metal Heads to enter the city to retrieve their shippments of Eco?

Back on topic: It is quite true. If you were to give up your freedom for security, then a person does not deserve either. If a person were to recieve such security, they may feel safe and protected, but the protection itself could prove as a hazard, and seeing that the person no longer has freedom, there is no way to escape from it. If a person has freedom, then they have to fend for themselves on most occasions. But, in a free area, most people help one another when it is needed, meaning that even though the person cannot protect themselves, others have the ability to do so and will do the such when they can. (Ex. Police officers.)

Miles24 wrote:

The Freedom Fighter wrote:

Super Racer Z wrote:

The Freedom Fighter wrote:

Phantom wrote:The exact quote, as far as Wikiquote can tell, is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What that means to me is that no matter what is happening in the world around us, we must never cease to live freely, even amid a massive crisis (case in point: "Invasion USA" featuring Chuck Norris).

You know, that version of the quote though is quite more curious. The way it's written it leaves a massive hole: while it's bad to sacrifice freedom for some temporary safety, doing so for permanent or a massive amount isn't necessarily opposed, at least in terms of the quote. Perhaps he was just trying to be fancy with his words, but that way just leaves an opening.

Define massive. Unless you never leave your high security house or your super expensive armored car, It will always be temporary safety.

Massive as in Haven City.

Haven City wasn't exactly a secure city though, nor was it free. Or do I need to mention the Baron's allowance of Metal Heads to enter the city to retrieve their shippments of Eco?

Back on topic: It is quite true. If you were to give up your freedom for security, then a person does not deserve either. If a person were to recieve such security, they may feel safe and protected, but the protection itself could prove as a hazard, and seeing that the person no longer has freedom, there is no way to escape from it. If a person has freedom, then they have to fend for themselves on most occasions. But, in a free area, most people help one another when it is needed, meaning that even though the person cannot protect themselves, others have the ability to do so and will do the such when they can. (Ex. Police officers.)

Very true. But two things: one, the Baron allowed the security to be breached in that regard, and two, Haven City was an example of people giving up freedom for security. It's just security was failing, especially under the Baron, even when he asked the people to give up more freedom for more security.
Good points indeed. Some of which can back up my point of Haven City. :faic:

Miles24 wrote:

The Freedom Fighter wrote:

Super Racer Z wrote:

The Freedom Fighter wrote:
You know, that version of the quote though is quite more curious. The way it's written it leaves a massive hole: while it's bad to sacrifice freedom for some temporary safety, doing so for permanent or a massive amount isn't necessarily opposed, at least in terms of the quote. Perhaps he was just trying to be fancy with his words, but that way just leaves an opening.

Define massive. Unless you never leave your high security house or your super expensive armored car, It will always be temporary safety.

Massive as in Haven City.

Haven City wasn't exactly a secure city though, nor was it free. Or do I need to mention the Baron's allowance of Metal Heads to enter the city to retrieve their shippments of Eco?

Back on topic: It is quite true. If you were to give up your freedom for security, then a person does not deserve either. If a person were to recieve such security, they may feel safe and protected, but the protection itself could prove as a hazard, and seeing that the person no longer has freedom, there is no way to escape from it. If a person has freedom, then they have to fend for themselves on most occasions. But, in a free area, most people help one another when it is needed, meaning that even though the person cannot protect themselves, others have the ability to do so and will do the such when they can. (Ex. Police officers.)

You make some good points there, Miles. Haven City might have focused more on security and ended up being quite a secure city, but, at the end, it cost them their very soul and happiness whilst doing so. This is why democratic styles of leadership are often preferred throughout the world.