Why do people choose safety over freedom?

Question

Our forefathers fought and gave their lives so that we might enjoy freedom. However in recent times people are choosing safety over freedom of movement. They are choosing safety over privacy. I don't know about you but I made it through childhood without car seats, I made it through childhood without a safety helmet when I rode my bike. I just don't get why we are so willing to add cost and hassel to our lives when these things did not affect us as we grew up.

Answer 1

'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' - Benjamin Franklin

Answer 2

Times change, and sometimes for the better. The nanny state mentality is spreading, again partially for the better. Whether any particular nannyism is "better" depends very much on your point of view. A good example is Social Security, which I am now drawing. Using data from the Social Security web site, and Dow Jones web site in conjunction with a recent Social Security earnings report, I compared the present worth of my Social Security benefits package (about $230,000) with the worth of a portfolio of common stocks, bought by just buying the 30 DJIA stocks once a year during my working career, and re-invesiting all dividends. (No fancy timing or stock-picking here, just the most brainless strategy possible.) The portfolio would be worth $870,000. If every voter had done this calculation before the last election, there would not be a Democrat in office today.

Answer 3

While i agree that giving up rights for safety is a slippery slope. But you lose me on the car seats/helmet thing. There are more cars & drivers on the road then ever and a chid not in a car seat is a waiting missle. And so many children die or suffer brain damage in bike accidents, that i think it's a great law . 100 yrs ago we had more freedom..and our avg lifespan was 47.

Answer 4

In inner city neighborhoods where crime was rampant the families decieded they had enough of locking themselves in at night to be safe. the 'took back the streets.' Somehow I see a parralel. So who took back the streets? Not the cops for the people. Want something done right ? Do it yourself.The media, the police ,the security forces and everyone who is job dependant on secutity issues will and do hype up that issue creating more fear . The gullible call for more laws, better checks, more checks. The politicians are only to happy to comply. Ordinary people will have to call for an end to the hype. Vigilent you all must be. but when you feel you must lock yourselves up , no one can call that freedom

Answer 5

Who said we did? I don't think we even have a choice in any of this stuff nowadays. We're living in the post 9/11 era, and it's kind of like living in "Little Russia."

For instance, there're very few places, including bars and soon even outdoors at my place of employment, where I can safely light up a cigarrette without fearing the police being called on me or risk losing my job. I heard a report on Matt Drudge a few weeks ago that in Topeka, KS, that if you see someone outdoors smoking that you are supposed to call 911 immediately.

I was talking to a trucker today and found out they have a law in Ohio that makes it illegal for company drivers to light up in the cab of the truck while driving anywhere in Ohio. The only exemption to this is for owner/operators.

And even though it's O.K. to drive with a cell phone glued to your ear and for motorcyclist to still not wear helmets in my state, it's now against the law to drive without your seatbelt on. And yes, they do set up seatbelt stings all over town to enforce the law.

As I say, these are things I don't recall having a say in. We're certainly on a "slippery slope." What will be taken away from us next?

Answer 6

If you haven't noticed, people in general are not very good at logical thinking, especially when it comes to problems that require more than simple mathematics. If we understood relative risks, we would usually make more rational choices. But we'd still need seat belt laws and such, because of the money. Motorcycle helmet laws are largely justified because almost all people who have major head injuries in motorcycle wrecks are seriously under-insured, and it's not right to pass the costs of care on to the general population when wearing helmets makes such a huge difference. Here it's one person's freedom vs. a lot of peoples' money.

Answer 7

We make compromises between freedom and security all the time.

Why do we have jails? So we are less likely to be assaulted, robbed, or murdered. We take away criminal's freedom.

It's also why we license drivers. So that we're less likely to be killed on the way home. But it takes away freedom from those who aren't licensed to drive.

Answer 8

There are lower maslowian needs (food, water, love, health) Those are more important than freedom, and are prerequisites for freedom. I think it's wise to value safety insomuch as it secures are freedom.

Answer 9

The average American is just too stupid to survive in the modern world without help. There are a number of things to blame this on, but it all reverts back to the government and public education (socialization). All the mandates and ruling handed down have essentially made "education" unconstitutional. In order to offend absolutely nobody, no issues of substance can even be discussed in school other than fear and how we need a big government to protect us, and how we need to spend so much more on this "education."

This fear manifests itself later in life - obesity, depression, addictions, adhd, ocd, . . . it's remarkable how many people suffer from a host of diseases that were not present just one or two generations ago. These are, of course, all psychosomatic - induced by the constant bombardment of the message of fear we get from cradle to grave through educators, advertisers, elected officials - you name it. And, of course, they have the solution.

Sheep are easily led.

Answer 10

I agree with your question, but not your answer.

A case can be made for _some_ paternalistic laws, e.g. the two examples you gave. However, I disagree with, for example, motorcycle helmet laws.

But the worse concern in choosing _perceived_ safety over freedom is that it causes us to (1) get into wars we have no business being in; (2) allow our government to tap / trace our communications, including the internet; (3) allow our government to kidnap people and hold them, sometimes allowing third parties to torture them. without any due process to speak of; (4) violate other, formerly held, Geneva Conventions of War; and (5) allow our Congress to ignore (and sometime legalize) these violations.

I don't often quote him, because I disagreed strongly with his policies (but not his general philosophy on freedom):

"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down -- up to man's age-old dream -- the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course." - Pres. Reagan

Answer 11

Dumb Dumb Dumb. Our forefathers didn't use car seats because they didn't know any better. Once you learn how to make something more safe, you should use it. How about we stop enforcing safety regulations on construction projects, it's too much of a hassle. Or how about we stop making doctors wear gloves, used sterilized needles, and wash their hands. I wouldn't want to infiringe on my freedom.