Amazon.com Widgets

Do you think the rights of the individual are more important than national safety?

  • Having individual rights, people can create safety community.

    Everyone has right to create better condition for themselves. It can help the community to be safety and to be a better condition. On the other side when the people don't have rights to do as they wish, they many find the solution in wrong ways by harming others and it could create worse condition in community.

  • Depends.

    First of all, my personal answer is no. Definitely no. That having been said, from a government perspective national safety is more important. However, a government should not exist.

  • I believe individual rights are more important than national safety, because without individual rights, our national safety is meaningless

    Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, those who would give up safety for liberty deserve neither safety nor liberty. I believe that a nation without individual rights is not a free nation, and on its face is not a safe nation to begin with. Therefore, I believe that the rights of the individual take precedence over national safety.

    Posted by: BrownDustin82
  • National safety is important, but security theater should not infringe on the rights of the individual.

    Currently a good deal of our 'national security' measures (especially the TSA) fall under 'security theater'. They are simply infringing on the rights of citizens rather than actually making us any safer. If a method (such as the Israeli airport screening methods) actually make us safer, it is generally not viewed as an inconvenience, but this is not usually the case.

    Posted by: LongShawn93
  • The individual makes the nation therefore comes first.

    In this day and age there are far too many corrupt governments that do not care about individuals. The entire world is in such a mess and trying to implement a new world government that our rights are slowly but surely being taken away just for the benefit of a select few elite.

    Posted by: RabidSean44
  • Individual rights are more important than national safety, because those rights define the nation.

    National security should not be used as a convenient excuse to violate individual rights, because those rights define the nation. If you destroy those rights, even with good intentions, you have effectively destroyed the nation. Too often, national security appears to be about threats to a tiny percentage of the lives or property within our borders. While we must strive to ensure that residents can go about their daily lives with little concern about national security threats, it should not be difficult to achieve that goal without any strong violations of the rights of individual citizens and residents.

    Posted by: LuciaL
  • Id rather have all the freedom in the world and not be safe than to have all the safety in the world and not be free

    Freedom and safety are directly connected if safety is gained i guarantee you some freedom will be lost and vice verse. individual liberty is what our country was built on they were tired of having their individual liberty taken little by little. what's the difference of individual liberty and overall freedom? I'd rather a murderer get away because he had too much freedom than to take away freedom from every person who could murder, should we take away the freedom of 1,000 people to catch 1 murderer, definitely not. The fourth opposing argument??? The American love of frivolous lawsuits? I'm just glad that you can have a lawsuit id rather have the right to sew someone for wrong doing even if people do use it to much about little pointless things but if that right was taken away what could you do when you had a good reason to sew someone, nothing.
    I'm also not selfish because i want to keep individual liberty for everyone so the government doesn't have too much power over us and i don't think any individual could get away with mass murder just because of his individual rights their would be plenty of witnesses to a mass murder lol i don't think safety should trump freedom, freedom gives us safety in what we can do.

  • Individual freedom trumps national safety.

    Benjamin Franklin once said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Nobody can completely prevent bad things from happening, this is a fact that will never change, despite any laws put in place in the name of national security. The freedom of the individual should always be protected, and giving it up or marginalizing it for the sake of bureaucratic policy is not proper. If governments want to promote nat'l security, they should start with foreign policy.

    Posted by: gwynisin
  • Martial Law Under Marcos

    Migration is a painful decision to deliberate and then act upon. Uprooting one's self and one's family is a drastic step that takes a desperate situation to motivate it. Far too often, that desperate situation is a totalitarian regime. If that is what you are attempting to escape then you would gravitate toward its polar opposite. So, for many immigrants, U.S.A. Is the beacon of freedom and anyone in a uniform who claims authority over one's life, limb and privacy will be perceived as a threat.

  • History gives us a warning here

    Every time a government removes freedom from it's populace, it becomes despotic. From Greece and Rome through to today.

    More civilians have died at the hands of their own governments, in the name of "safety", than from the original problem those governments were purporting to protect them from...

    As Jefferson pointed out, I'd rather suffer the trials and tribulations attending too much "freedom", than be shot by some Despot because I refused to be a slave.

  • Extremely Selfish Perspective

    The core problem with our country is this mentality. What happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?" Examples of the potential danger in our current thought process are everywhere. Going back to the recent Ebola scare, imagine if someone knowingly infected with Ebola chose to roam around public as he/she pleased because they cared more about their desire to be social and their right to refuse isolation than the possible danger of exposing hundreds of other people to a deadly disease. Its time we start putting others and the good of our country before our own personal gain.

  • I do not believe that many should suffer for one person.

    It seems ridiculous that the greater good of all should be sacrificed for the one. It is better that one suffer discomfiture for the safety and peace of the rest. Is this not the point of living in a democratic republic? In some countries it is believed that the masses should suffer while a chosen few sit in the lap of luxury, but that certainly is not the American way.

    Posted by: WitchSau
  • I do not believe that the rights of the individual are more important than national safety because, these days, people are too concerned with their own rights, and not concerned enough about the rights of those around them.

    Individuals today tend to be selfish and inward-focused. They think only about themselves and their own well-being. The American love of frivolous lawsuits is just one example of this prevalent attitude. Our country could be great again if people would put their neighbors' needs and the greater good ahead of their own desires. The rights of one person (in spite of what that person might think) should never be placed ahead of the safety or well-being of our nation as a whole. This would only exacerbate the current problem, and create a dangerous precedent. For example, a criminal who is hiding urgent information could invoke his rights, and literally get away with mass murder.

    Posted by: D Mayo
  • I do not think the rights of an individual are more important than national safety; it is one person versus the masses.

    A person's individual rights are important but must be taken into account only to the extent of the nation's rights. A single individual can wreak havoc and destroy many people in their wake, if not controlled to some extent. National safety is the responsibility of everyone and an individual's rights are their responsibility.

    Posted by: Punkin
  • National safety is more important than the rights of individuals.

    National safety is more important than the rights of individuals because when one individual's rights are put at risk, only one individual is compromised; but, when national safety is put at risk, all individuals are compromised. It is better to preserve the community with the compromised individual in it than to sacrifice the community for the individual.

    Posted by: JamieM
  • National safety is more important that individual rights because who cares if you have rights if you are fearful for your life.

    It is not even an argument when thinking about individual rights vs. national safety. Individual rights are a nice idea, but in today's violent world it is much better to have national safety. The only way to enjoy the right in the first place is if you are safe. It is more or less a circle, to have rights you need safety.

    Posted by: M0r3Interior
  • A a a

    No wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno way

  • A a a

    No wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno way

  • A a a

    No wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno way

  • A a a

    No wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno wayno way


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.