You could be free and broke, or you could have peace because someone else is caring for you. You could have freedom at the expense of others being suppressed, or you could have peace because you are in the dominant position.
2006-06-22 09:13:43 · 27 answers · asked by JazzyJB 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Peace baby, because in the end all you have is your sanity.
2006-06-22 09:16:40 · answer #1 · answered by Me 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes I could be free and broke (but that sucks)
That's the "freedom's just another word for nothin left to lose" choice. Boo on that.
Free, peaceful and rich is better.
Freedom doesn't have to be by suppressing others. I'm not the monkey with the button. I just keep my own nest clean and do my best to help others. I do the best I can, and always give more than I take from this goofy planet.
Anything else is a zero sum game. We all live in infinity, which has infinite possibilities. My favorite possibility is to be in peace with sensitive humans around me, avoid unpeaceful humans, and load up on Reese's Peanut Butter cups.
I am rich because I don't try to keep up with anybody's rabid consumer habits, have fun with my family and friends, and avoid greedy weasels and control freaks, do work I enjoy, live on less that I make and enjoy every day and the cool people within it.
What too many people seem to like in reality is being a slave lemming and pretending to be free with credit cards, going around kicking bee's nests in the groin
That is a good way to take your peace and your freedom away from yourself.
I choose freedom AND peace.
I recommend it highly.
2006-06-22 09:58:37 · answer #2 · answered by Cowboy Cartoonist 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
After carefully reading your post and because your comment states I could have freedom...at the expense of others being suppressed...I would go with Peace. Also you mentioned being free and broke, which is not appealing to me either.
And...thinking about it, if you really have peace, wouldn't freedom naturally go with it? But, freedom does not necessarily include peace.
2006-06-22 09:21:20 · answer #3 · answered by JC 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd prefer being free and brok and having peace because someone else is caring for me. Because in the end does money really matter, i mean it can be gone in a second. But freedom has to be cherished no matter what. And peace, everyone needs peace.
2006-06-22 09:17:28 · answer #4 · answered by Carrie P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Peace, because if there was more peace in this world than wars and other bad things won't happen anymore I mean if there was less fighting and more loving then the world would be a happier place to live in and freedom because you can do anything you want.
2006-06-22 09:19:13 · answer #5 · answered by Draine2213 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a world without freedom there will never be peace, because there will be "the oppressed" who will fight for their freedom. It is the way of the human animal.
So I say freedom, since it will eventually bring peace.
2006-06-22 09:28:59 · answer #6 · answered by boter_99 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the first answerer would have study courageous New international through Huxley... if no longer, i imagine he would take excitement in it. Doublethink - it truly is common approaches to positioned it. conflict is Peace - in this actual novel, overseas conflict is family individuals peace. It keeps the potential and stability of the celebration. that is likewise idealogical peace - each body has an common enemy. Freedom is Slavery - freedom is a suitable in this novel that holds characters to a larger accepted. someone who considers themself loose, or who thinks freely, can no longer fall dumbly into the ranks of the indoctrinated. he's a slave to this proper - he believes he's an autonomous human being. lack of understanding is potential - contained in the unconventional, that is more effective instantly ahead no longer to understand. the finest adult males of the celebration are those who can comprehend the reality, yet no longer act upon it, believe some thing else even. they're reliable because of their voluntary lack of understanding. The potential of the celebration is likewise lack of understanding - at the same time as each body is ignorant, they'll in no way reject celebration rule. try reversing the statements too - Peace is conflict. Slavery is freedom. potential is lack of understanding. It sheds new mild on the problem. i in my opinion do no longer trust any of the statements, yet even if i'm a Libertarian. i'm hoping i did not do exactly your homework for you...oh properly.
2016-11-15 03:17:08 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom.
2006-06-22 09:18:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If one person is oppressed in a free society, then no-one is free. You have to choose freedom since peace is at the expense of oppressing others.
2006-06-22 09:23:50 · answer #9 · answered by Gregie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without freedom there can be no peace
2006-06-22 09:17:57 · answer #10 · answered by BONE° 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom. Because I can actually believe freedom is achievable, whereas I cannot believe peace is.
2006-06-22 09:16:48 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋