press release critique

[Josef Dalcolmo]

lh at lutz-horn.de said:
>> freedom and "free of danger" exclude each other. Freedom means risk.
>> If you want safety, you have to give up freedom.
> Why do you think this is the case?

Well, I thought I would get myself into trouble with this statement. I meant 
it psychologically: To act in a free way, one has to make decisions, and 
making decisions involves risk, at least psychologically (I could make the 
wrong decision, and one does not always have the time to think everything 
through to the end).

But I admit, you were probably not speaking of the psychological aspect, when 
talking about freedom and risk. Still, the exclusion of risk is an illusion, I 
believe. There are always things in life one cannot predict (fortunately), and 
that means also that I could get sick, or poor or even die. If I want to 
maximise my safety, I must avoid any dangerous activity, like climbing, flying 
delta-plans etc. That means however, I have less freedom in my life. If I 
choose a risky business decision I may have made use of more freedom but may 
end up poor. Playing it safe restricts my possibilities.

We like to dream up an utopia, where freedom and safety coexist, but that is 
only in our head.

- Josef