English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-06-30 03:46:57 · 11 answers · asked by cookiemonster1128 1 in Politics & Government Civic Participation

11 answers

stupid humans

2006-06-30 03:49:28 · answer #1 · answered by nice_dog 5 · 0 0

The challenge is to keep it. When this country was first formed, it was clearly recognized that there would always be a problem maintaining liberty. Ben Franklin said that whoever traded his liberty for a little security ended up with neither. And today, the phrase is that you can have a free society or a safe society.

People are not willing to take the risks, or even tolerate any risk at all, entailed in freedom. They re-cast the concept of "freedom" from the actual meaning into "freedom from crime" and "freedom from terrorists" and "freedom from upsetting ideas" and so on.

So it is a question of getting people to accept it that to be free is to take risks, and to accept these risks is far more noble and inspiring than to hand over freedon and cower in fear under a "protective" governmental umbrella.

2006-06-30 04:05:38 · answer #2 · answered by sonyack 6 · 0 0

Unfortunately FREEDOMS only challenge is being trapped in the minds of oppressed creatures, dreaming of being better than a virus. True freedom is impossible on this Planet. It may be elsewhere, but it will never survive here, as long as there are humans.

2006-06-30 03:52:25 · answer #3 · answered by Insight 4 · 0 0

The desire for freedom is always at odds with the desire for security and protection (including protection from the free speech of others). The more free a society is, the more risks people have to accept. We need to figure out how to balance this rationally, and educate people to face dangers with bravery, instead of surrender.

2006-06-30 03:53:33 · answer #4 · answered by Torero In Red 3 · 0 0

Freedom would not exist, in basic terms the phantasm of it. in accordance to Webster's Dictionary of regulation, freedom: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in selection or action. Democracy isn't freedom, the government constrains us with rules and regulations, consequently we don't have "freedom." we've limited freedom.

2016-10-31 23:42:57 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

To keep the system orderly and safe.
I don't want other people to have the freedom to kill me.
or steal from me. or rape me.
Freedom has to end when it jeopardizes safe life.

2006-06-30 03:50:23 · answer #6 · answered by BonesofaTeacher 7 · 0 0

People who feel it necessary (and possible) to control anothers thoughts and behavior by relieving them of the responsibility that comes with free-will.

2006-06-30 03:52:53 · answer #7 · answered by 4999_Basque 6 · 0 0

The Democrats and liberalism

2006-06-30 03:49:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You cannot have self government without self control and unfortunatlly most humans do not have self control

2006-06-30 03:49:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

when ma daddy doznt lemme go to a party and i have to nag and he has to get nrvs and then i start banggin ma head to da wall ....n go on

2006-06-30 03:50:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

to not let it create enemies that will destroy it

2006-06-30 03:50:10 · answer #11 · answered by done 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers