Everybody wants to be free, but is freedom to dangerous to be left in the hands of citizens like us?

What if we had the ability to track each citizen? If a kid is kidnapped we know exactly where they are, we know where they're going, and we know who has them. If we could control the population we could make sure that kid never gets kidnapped, and even they are kidnapped we have a very effective way of rescuing them. Imagine if that kid was a little girl who was about to be sexually abused by the kidnapper; isn't it better that we CONTROL the population to ensure these sick things never happen?

What if we had a system that told us when someone was doing something illegal? What if we knew when someone was drinking and driving? We could save the life of an innocent child, or perhaps an entire family. Drugs don't always make you do bad things, but drugs will ALWAYS lead to violence, and we need to control the population to ensure violence is contained.

What if our law enforcement had the ability to search whatever they wanted? They need no warrant. Why do you want a warrant anyway? Do you have something to hide? If you're an innocent person you have nothing to hide. In my eyes, if you request a warrant then you're hiding something.

Imagine if we had the ability to immediately flag and arrest potential terrorists.

How many people live in poverty and continue to spend taxpayers money on drugs? Why are people against drug tests for welfare and food stamps? Why would you deny a drug test? Are you spending the money that you supposedly don't have on illegal substances?

I believe a BETTER world is a SAFE world, but a SAFE world is only possible through CONTROL, NOT FREEDOM.

I'd rather have my privacy, thanks.

I feel like that was satirical, but I'm not entirely sure either way.

In either case, only this part,

TJByrum said How many people live in poverty and continue to spend taxpayers money on drugs? Why are people against drug tests for welfare and food stamps? Why would you deny a drug test? Are you spending the money that you supposedly don't have on illegal substances?

sounds like an implementable and sane idea.

Everybody wants to be safe, but is safety too dangerous to be left in the hands of governments?

What if we had the ability to have some privacy? If a kid goes outside they can play with their friends, be active, and have a social life. If we could have free will we could make sure that another Stalin and Hitler wouldn't happen, and even if they do we have an effective way to get them out. Imagine if that dictator was about to commit genocide?; isn't it better that we have free will to ensure these sick things never happen?

What if we had a way to have a personal life? What if we were respected as individuals? Life might actually not be a living hell for some people. Lack of freedom don't always make you do bad things, but lack of freedom will ALWAYS lead to violence (America), and we need to respect the population to avoid that violence.

What if our law enforcement wasn't allowed to do anything they want to innocent people? They need a good reason. Why do you want an unrestricted authority? Do you like being hounded and abused? If you're a responsible person you have nothing to complain about. In my eyes, if you request a warrant then you know you're basic rights.

Imagine if we weren't allowed to instantly arrest and torture everyone because of terrorist paranoia?

How many people live in wealth and continue to throw money on unnecessary golden toilets? Why are people want to be harassed for basic support? Why would you want to be treated less than human? Do you actually respect yourself?

I believe a better world is a free world, but a free world is only possible through respect and common sense. Not dictatorship and paranoia.

A controlled world is only safe for those who are still deemed fit to live by those with power over the masses.

Who watches the watchmen; indeed.

In a free world, the strength of the masses is held paramount to ensuring the safety of the whole against mass-tyranny. If you look towards your fellow man with caution and suspicion simply because you woke up to a scary-looking thunderstorm of violence, that is your own problem.
-I suggest you learn to deal with it, rather than seek to destroy it.

What happens when you elect a leader who views YOU as suspicious? Would you be in favor of being swatted out of the blue and then 'indefinitely detained' in an unmarked grave by the highway? Since you are suggesting the implementation of 'street judges' by your angle.

So, are we talking about crime prevention, or crime and punishment?
-As we have proven punishment is hardly a prevention.

Control the desires of your nation. That is the ultimate power - the ability to prevent undesirable thought, not punish it.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

Magic Magnum said
Everybody wants to be safe, but is safety too dangerous to be left in the hands of governments?

I like what Benjamin Franklin said on the matter:

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

Need more be said?

Roose Hurro said
I like what Benjamin Franklin said on the matter:Need more be said?

Nope, that summarizes it perfectly. :)

Why are people want to be harassed for basic support? Why would you want to be treated less than human? Do you actually respect yourself?

Pathos. It should keep you from starving, but you should want to get off it as fast as possible. It should be very uncomfortable.

You cannot argue in the same breath for FREEDOM and then advocate putting guns to people's heads (Taxes involve the use of force, which is more uncomfortable than a VOLUNTARY drug test) to make them pay for people.

TJByrum said How many people live in poverty and continue to spend taxpayers money on drugs? Why are people against drug tests for welfare and food stamps? Why would you deny a drug test? Are you spending the money that you supposedly don't have on illegal substances

You do realize a small number of states have tried to do drug testing for welfare recipients? In Tennessee, out of over 800 people tested, only one tested positive. That's less than 1 percent. Other states had similar results.

In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year. Can you say massive failure?

Anyway, you must be a Republican.

Commander said You do realize a small number of states have tried to do drug testing for welfare recipients? In Tennessee, out of over 800 people tested, only one tested positive. That's less than 1 percent. Other states had similar results.In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year. Can you say massive failure?

Not shocking. Drugs tend to be expensive, so it's something well off people are probably more willing to pay for than people who are already struggling to get by.

The point is not to save money, the point is to save people from poverty. Every person we give welfare to who uses drugs, we are hurting, not helping.

Drug tests should be expanded for public assistance to include nicotine and alcohol.

If one is free, they must control themselves. If one cannot control themselves, then it is only natural for them to get controlled by others, wether that is for the purpose of safety or lowly personal gain.

So Boerd said
The point is not to save money, the point is to save people from poverty. Every person we give welfare to who uses drugs, we are , not helping.Drug tests should be expanded for public assistance to include nicotine and alcohol.

Not necessarily.
If people are so hooked on drugs to use welfare money on it, they're bound to invest money in it even when denied welfare.
Which means they're still hurting in terms of food, shelter, clothing and power.

Magic Magnum said
Not necessarily.If people are so hooked on drugs to use welfare money on it, they're bound to invest money in it even when denied welfare.Which means they're still hurting in terms of food, shelter, clothing and power.

What makes you think they won't buy more with the Welfare money?

So Boerd said
What makes you think they won't buy more with the Welfare money?

There's no guarantee they won't.
But if they already have some drugs that might be enough incentive to start buying stuff like decent food.

I'd rather take the chance though than condemn people to starve because of a substance they choose to take.

Magic Magnum said
There's no guarantee they won't.But if they already have some drugs that might be enough incentive to start buying stuff like decent food.I'd rather take the chance though than condemn people to starve because of a substance they choose to take.

Because if they end up buying more drugs, we may end up being partially responsible for their death. This is the central issue with welfare. It is money seized from another person by force. It does not belong to the recipient. The state and the electorate have the absolute authority to set conditions on its use. Therefore, it is the drug user's fault for consuming the drug and not our fault for not giving them money they to all fair minded people have no rights to. Nothing is more uncomfortable than food withdrawal anyhow.

If we wanted to make all welfare recipients listen to 3 hours of Tom Jones' "What's new, pussycat?" I wouldn't have any objection. Being on welfare should cause almost as much if not more government-caused distress than men with guns making you fork over money to pay for the welfare does,

I think the answer to this question is simple: the power vested in the state should be exactly proportional to how much you can trust its leadership. Theoretically, any system can be corrupted by stuffing it full of enough bad people, and any system can work if stuffed with enough good people. Ideally, the best governmental system would be a totalitarian system (hear me out) led by an infallible despot. However, since people are very, very fallible, despotism invariably fails. So, you just cut back on their power and make them a bit more accountable, and eventually you end up with a constitutional republic.

I say human beings are meant to have hierarchies every culture in history has, hell even animals. I don't believe in idealistic thinking because normally it leads to disappointment, depression and anger. Me personally I believe in monarchy and I think democracy is overrated and chaotic, humans are too stubborn to all work together. I say bring back the old ways.

Yog Sothoth said
I say human beings are meant to have hierarchies every culture in history has, hell even animals. I don't believe in idealistic thinking because normally it leads to disappointment, depression and anger. Me personally I believe in monarchy and I think democracy is overrated and chaotic, humans are too stubborn to all work together. I say bring back the old ways.

The main difference between Monarchy and Democracy is that a person is put in charge due to blood, not personal merit.
The position is leader becomes a title of inheritance, something that a few lucky children 'deserve' no matter how rotten they are.
Rather than a title/responsibly that one must earn.

I will agree that Democracy is far from perfect, it has many flaws, and gives too much voice to people who either don't care or don't know crap about the world in comparison to those who do know or care about the world. But it is definitely a better system that systematically raising the most ultimately spoiled/entitled brat of a child you could ever imagine and then letting them lead.