November Election

[Logic1]

Pardon me, I wasn't arguing with the above points in my previous post because, as I said, you're obviously intelligent enough to know what I think already. Just in case I'm wrong though, enjoy the next two paragraphs.

I absolutely disagree, of course; the absence of safety does not preclude nor make worthless liberty. Just because you don't have the opportunity or inclination to enjoy every freedom you have doesn't mean you shouldn't be mortified at their reduction.

Justice is not only not conditional upon stability, but many stable countries notably sacrifice justice to guarantee stability. The conduct of China towards occupied Tibet is a wonderful example thereof.



I mainly brought it up because I think that Sweden nationally followed the exact same line of reasoning you were inclining yourself towards. The decision that safety is more important than freedom.

To be clear, I do not believe that Sweden is a nation of cowards, or behaved in a cowardly manner; I just like quoting Winston Churchill. I think its more accurate to say that you're a nation of pragmatists, who behaved in a pragmatic manner.

I do think its important that we have many idealists in this world though, who will do things like fight fascism at the risk of their own lives. You probably already know I think that, especially if you've ever taken the time to read my .sig. In my opinion, a nation of pragmatists is forever at the mercy of those who see them as the means to an end.

You do have a point absolutely but my point didnt come through as I meant it sadly. What I meant was that just having one or the other makes the "whole" less if you know what I mean. Every liberty is nice but to have both liberty and safety is way better than just the one.

Nowadays lots of western countries seems to sacrifice freedom to have safety and stability which is real sad. Echelon and other ways for the governments to "spy" on their fellow countrymen is definite signs on this.

I am all for all the freedoms we can get though