Asklemmy

46663 readers

861 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why does it seem that "freedom" and "security" are antonyms? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It seems that whenever you look for one, you lose the other. If you seek labor freedom, you lose economic security, and vice versa. States "promise" more security in exchange for citizen freedom. It is very difficult for me to find an instance in life in which security and freedom can fully and frictionlessly coexist.

Is it just me or is that how it goes?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I was in a discussion the other day about this, and someone brought up the "freedom vs. security" as the kind of "trade" someone assumes if they would, with complete freedom, fuck up someone else because they had no restrictions. We were discussing how the reason most laws exist is because somebody fucked it up for someone else.