Freedom vs. Security (Which is more important)?

[EXPLICITasian]

I always find myself getting into conversations about terrorists and freedoms, and it always comes down to the same question... would you be willing to give up your freedoms in order to become safer? Well our Government thinks this is an awesome idea (implying to patriot act), but not everyone agrees. The main point goes something like this, "well if you don't give up some of your rights then the terrorists can harm us". While this is a good point (well not incredibly... but it does scare the shit out of a lot of people) what's the point of living without freedom? On the other hand what's the point of freedoms if you're dead?

Discuss

 

[black lincon]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."Ben Franklin"

that sums up my opinion, freedom is and always will be more important than security.

 

[BirdKiller]

Are we talking in the context of human nature (i.e: State of nature, property, overbloated philosophers, etc.) or something more practical (can we exercise the liberty to carry grenades, explosives, and guns in public)?

 

[sidhe3141]

Freedom and security must be balanced for the good of all. An excess of freedom results in anarchy; a paucity, in tyranny. Too much security results in stagnation; too little, in destruction.
So what do I think the balance is? I say that it changes from one month to the next, but that we currently have too little freedom as it is.

 

[Labyrinth]

The point of security is to preserve freedom, is it not? To quote Orwell "Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4. If that is granted, all else follows." I don't believe that surrendering my rights will help terrorists be caught. It doesn't work that way. In truth it's just 'terrorists' winning. They want people scared, yes? A climate of fear, even if it's propagated by the government, is an end to their means.

For more on this topic, I suggest Little Brother by Cory Doctorow.

 

[Easykill]

Is this in any way inspired by me? The word choice seems... Familiar. Anyway, Freedom every time. More later. Busy.

 

[wasalp]

Freedom is the ultimate goal because everyone should have the freedom to not be scared, to feel safe, to thrust its government, etc.

So I would have to say freedom > safety

(well in Canada we really dont give a shit. Thanks america )

 

[Geoffrey42]

Seems dependent on which you are shortest on at any given moment. Note Franklin's direct comment to "temporary" security. That's not all security. It is against fear-mongering, not against the idea that liberty has reasonable limits.

 

[TMAN10112]

"Those willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither" -Ben Franklin

I would rather live with all the threats that the world has to offer then give up any more freedom then what our supposedly "run by and for the people" government has left us with(not alot).

 

[WolfThomas]

"Yet I would gladly eat a flag myself, had I not used my intestine as a rope to hoist a flag made of my own skin. If it would protect the freedom of the proud people who salute that flag! Freedom such as polygamy."

Edit: Someone needs to eat a flag in protest of the patriotic act.

 

[Frizzle]

I'd have to say freedom over security. If we don't have to give up any of our cherished liberties, I believe more people would be willing to protect what we have. By that I mean keeping an eye out for people doing wrong. If people aren't willing to do that on their own to protect their own freedom, then a rise in violence or other type of inconvenience will motivate them.

You shouldn't need a military to protect your daily liberties. Military is there to stop people from stomping all over your home turf. That's it.

 

[Arntor]

I am always free, I need not a government to define what my freedoms are. The rest of the matter remains with whether or not my code of ethics is in agreement with the government's. If there is conflict, then I simply will not follow it.

Freedom.

 

[BigTex]

i would keep freedom, becuz y give up sumthing that basically allows u to freedom of speech and etc. for sum half butt security job that probably wont last for more than a 1 month tops

 

[stompy]

An oppressive government does more than terrorists could ever do for their cause. Therefore, freedom.

 

[Ursus Astrorum]

A better part of me is transcendentalist. That pretty much sums up my view.

 

[Phase_9]

Freedom. There is a reason our forefathers fought England, even though there were enemies and unknown dangers all around them in the Americas.

"Those who sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserves neither and will lose both"
-Ben Franklin

 

[mokes310]

Freedom, always freedom. The notion of "security" is a false ideal. Think about it this way: a government can do everything within their power to stop terrorists, restrict freedoms, spy on their citizens, but the one thing that they can't stop is the lone wolf. No one can stop one crazy person hell bent on causing terror.

 

[Mr Scott]

Freedom, in all honesty. I'm an Anarchist, but the idea only works if everyone's brain works right.

 

[FalloutJack]

I choose Secret Option C, for freedom AND security. If you can't guarantee me both, then you're operating out of the wrong handbook, or reading it upside-down like a certain ex-president. Freedom is the act of doing what pleases you and gets you about your day. Security is the act of making sure those acts are responsible and not out of line. If you can't provide security in a manner that does not jade the act of freedom and may seem illegal in of itself, you have failed in your mission. Hang your head in shame.