Look at the history behind the film Braveheart, think about how much the Scots put up with before they retaliated. Do you think they valued safety over freedom? Hard to tell, they were faced with freedom by retaliation (many deaths) or death of themselves and their kin at the hands of their aggresors. Not really a choice between freedom and safety is it.

A better example for this thread would be:

Safety is more important, i.e. I'll live in a city with laws and healthcare.

Freedom, sod society, I'll live with a small group in a lawless region where I can do what I like (even if you wouldn't want to, for example, kill, steal etc.).

I think Darkstorms theory doesn't apply to many, certainly a very small majority.

It does sem odd that many of you are saying freedom or death, this doesn't mean that freedom is more important to you than safety, it means freedom to do what you want is more important than your own life if faced with that situation.

My freedom is worth more to me than my life, to put it in your terms.

You have said that quite clearly Darkstorm, but do you rate freedom above safety?

I'm not going to be childish and suggest you move out in to the country or anything, I would like a straight answer to the thread topic *shrugs* with a little more thought than freedom or death, I'm not saying you don't believe that, but it wasn't really the question posed (unless Jordyn would like to kill me with sticks 'cos I'm misunderstanding ).

Then I suppose the sub-question becomes "Safety from what?"

Safety from economic trouble? Safety from death, or just physical harm? Safety from Tyranny? Safety from discrimination?

Well I took it as a safe environment in general (provided by how we live today, as in certain freedoms are removed, you know, laws and such), not sure if that is what Jordyn intended though....

Ah you see, simplified statements I tend to keep simplify.

That's why I inversed it and said prison vs. death. If we want to say a safe environment in general... well... I still lean towards freedom, and I don't think we have quite enough currently. But I do recognize the need for a safe environment somewhat... just like anyone else.

Don't get me wrong though, I wouldn't mind a catastrophic event causing total anarchy too much...

I meant in a scenario of say the apocolypse...(just an example)when there was the whole "number of the beast" thing...would you choose to take the number and continue safe in the fact that no harm would come to you, but you'd be under the..."rule" of the beast or would you decide to keep your freedom? Once again this is a scenario, not what I had in mind for the question I started...*stops and smiles*

Want to know what inspired this question...honestly? My daughter was watching pokeman the movie Mew two and mew two was having a debate with himself wondering if he should continue keeping the pokemon in his domain safe, but they could not do as they pleased or let them go out to the world and be free but risk being destroyed...

But before he could figure it out Pikachu zapped him and he forgot what he was doing...

I didn't see the end, but it did make me start to wonder if the scenario presented itself...what would I do...

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?...I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

Thats partly like the plot behind Breath Of Fire 3, a few heros set out to stop a Goddess being overly protective of them and stifling their freedom and growth in the process.

Yep I`d most likely be a part of that rule.

Good point there..

By the way, Breath Of Fire III is one of the best rpg games for Playstation don't you think?