I have to admit that for me it's freedom. As much as I want peace I've realized also that everyone doesn't think the same way. Some people can't be changed. It's an idealistic idea, really. And I consider myself a realist. So, I'm on a quest to find inner peace instead because everything good starts with an individual. The more people who find inner peace, the better the world will become, really. And I've come to terms that freedom means everything and more to me. And when I lose restraints, I am happy.
Freedom over peace, though freedom normally leads to peace, as for example 2 democracies have never really been at war with each other, in fact the closest I can think of is the war of 1812 between America and Britain, Britain did have an elected parliment at the time(if I recall they actually had an election that year as did the US) though the king still held considerable influence
i would say freedom as long as what you did never harmed anything. but sadly, if everyone had freedom, it would be complete chaos. i have to say peace.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties in order to gain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin
Peace...because without a war their would be excuse for the government to use as they strip our freedoms away and the people would relize that because of war we are less free and they would (hopefully) do somthing to stop the evil shrub in the white house.
I think I'd go with peace too. Freedom is not the same as democracy, as we can see from experience. Freedom doesn't naturally leads to peace at all. Total freedom will lead to very unpeaceful matters sooner or later. I highly value freedom as well though, so it's not an easy decision to be made. But if we had real peace it would mean that it wouldn't restrict people with patronizing bureaucrasy and there also would be no need to sacrify any essential liberties, cause that sounds like a forced, unnatural and thus fake peace to me. Just like the bubble a lot of people live in now. Nice quote yes, but could you elaborate your own opinion? If we want peace and freedom for everyone, the fact seems to be that we have to have some restrictions. We can't have peace without freedom, but we can have freedom without peace.
silly, they're the same thing. Peace can only come from freedom; and freedom, REAL freedom only comes from peace.
Well that's up for you to decide. I think you could certainly argue that killing is ultimate freedom... then again I could just as easily argue it's the ultimate prison. As for what real freedom is? Silencing your inner babble.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties in order to gain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin i would rather have the freedom to choose peace even if that's not what everyone chooses than have peace that might be forced upon me. peace (and freedom)
If you're not free, you're not really at peace, and when you're not at peace, you're not really free!
I don't know about that last part. What has total freedom to do with peace? Yeah, I'm sure I could link it together and it's more pleasant to combine freedom with peace, but imagine the feeling when you're on the run because you totally abused your freedom (and they don't catch you). That's one ultimate form to experience that you're free, and you probably won't be peaced out at that time. Maybe it's the greatest way to celebrate your freedom as well
If everybody was totally free there is a good chance the world would be left with anarchy, not everybody would be at peace but if everybody was totally at peace then not everybody would be free. Many people in the world have it in themselves to want the freedom to cause pain and suffering - as misguided as it is, it is just who some people are. Then again many people believe peace as a numbness that comes from a "sedated" peaceful population. For a free and peaceful world so many factors must be balanced and regulated, but who will enforce the regulations? and who will regulate the enforcers. There is a chance for both freedom and peace and enforcement of the balance between the two - it just takes a truly benign universal wisdom to focus a conscious and consensual decision as to how that balance is kept in check. For my opinion the truest chance for both freedom and peace comes from a universal agreement to basic simple laws - everybody is free to choose their own path, as long as it harms no other either in mind body or spirit - anybody is free to challenge anothers actions as long as they have good grounds. - anybody and everybody is free to choose the elders who oversee any decisions that affect both individuals and the world as a whole, but those choices must be unilateral, agreed upon and approved by everybody. - nobody has the right to remove any freedoms from anybody without the uninfluenced and truly consensual agreement of everybody. - unfortunately due to human nature there are many things that one person will do that another will find unacceptable, but are still acceptable in general by everybody, so a free and peaceful world will eventually divide into tribes. these tribes will need to have agreements governing their interaction, and common laws of respect amongst each other. the tribes must also be willing to regulate these laws and have their own elders to decide direction, as well as a universal council of elders which can regulate the basic rules. so the peaceful world slowly becomes one of slightly less freedom. it is just a question of how to balance freedom and peace. btw i probly repeating myself in the above somewhere or parts of it might not make sense, but its like frikking 5am or something and i am desperately overtired and desperately over awake at the same time. maybe i should sleep. collective organichy. thats what i was trying to remember.