REEEEEE

yes

Reeee

Yes

No, never

🤔

yes

idk yet

He who trades liberty for security deserves neither, and will lose both.

This faggot. Rightwing

take away the liberty to sodomise and you get a better society

No fuck sake

Caitholou fuck off

Yes.

@|4d|61|74|74| what

not more than necessary tbh

Nein

I know this person

Take away dildos now!

You trust the state with everything

Absolutely not

don't let the gov take advantage of you just because a few brown people threaten to blow up your local walmart

Fuck your liberties

A somalian prophet. Why did you give that woman any rank

wtf

kill t

Yes, liberty is a vague, stupid and ridiculous political goal.

Wellbeing and security for the people are more important.

Security comes first ^

Security is a need not a privilege

Yes

Hmmm, to a certain extent

One of the main problems is trying to balance stability and liberty

Nein.

Security is best provided by oneself or one's family. State should have the ability to enforce emergency restrictions on freedoms, such as quarantines, but going much farther beyond that brings about the nanny state which is of course an abomination.

depends what the relation of the state is to the people., if the people agree, if this is a permanent restriction.

If the state is not directly responsible to the people at all times then this is an issue, this is not security but rather generation of an internal threat alongside external ones.

If the people commonly agree upon laws, we are placing restrictions that are enforced top down, however this is in common agreement. The irony here is that such restrictions would be in the form of mandatory military service for all fit men over the age of 18, such as one year in the military training, ad then monthly training thereafter. This is an objective restriction of rights, however it is commonly agreed upon as a duty, to increase collective security. As such this restriction simultaneously mandates collective participation and enforcement.

And also if a restriction is temporary, then it is temporary however it requires a gov that is responsive to the people, there needs to be connection in this system because if there isnt, then the quote of selling liberty for security, and ending up with neither holds true.

The church should handle the 10% people voluntarily give in tithes to actually help people instead of leaving it to the goverment who will waste a much higher amount of money. In exchange you go to church on sunday

That's a good point about military or civil service being legitimate

I think mandatory service upon adulthood would be a good thing for any country

It's also important to have different standards for different population densities, which is accomplished by keeping the bulk of state power at the local level.

The problem with keeping state power locally is you can’t get a unified or strong country that way