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

daily question is reliant on
a) who is currently in control of the state
b) who's liberties are being revoked

Yes the country should come before the individual, but the government shouldn’t needlessly revoke some liberties to benefit individuals.

I mean during certain situations, like a Homeland invasion, it'd make sense to revoke nearly all rights including trial, speech, press, in order to facilitate a victory

Of course at that point no one would give a hoot if your neighbour gets to keep there gun if they are sympathizing with an invading force.

Personally I think drug dealers need to be suspended their right to trial

And suppliers

That is a good idea, but would this extend to non-lethal drugs?

We give up our right to smuggle explosives in our luggage, while also giving up our rights to our full body scans. As to what the hell the TSA uses our full body scans for, one can only imagine. It may or may not be used for research purposes.

>right to smuggle explosives

As for full body scans fuck them

@everyone Daily Question 🔖

-At what age should a child, rather than the parent, be held responsible for it’s crimes and to what extent?

1st

16

12*

What do you mean?

4

LOL NO AGE. WELCOME TO ANCAPISTAN

12

4

The only thing Hitler did wrong was not to do the holocaust