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.
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.
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.
What's the point of our national safety when we cant live a life we enjoy? Our freedoms allow us to enjoy life and prosper. Giving up those freedoms for safety is like eating only asparagus when there is spaghetti on the table. I think that we should all take advantage of our rights and not just get rid of them for national safety. And as far as safety goes, I think we're doing fine as is.
A government should be implemented into society, but it shouldn't control the people under it. Government is supposed to support an individual, not assimilate them into a slave. The government restrains those who might kill/harm themselves or others or cause disorder. As individuals, we still have the right to do what we want. We have freedom of speech and all, but we just can't break laws.
I live in a County in Arizona near areas where many hundreds of people are at risk from radiation in the air, soil and water. This information is being downplayed and hidden. As an individual, I have the freedom to speak the truth, the ability to share the proof I've gathered and do what I believe is correct by sharing what I've learned with other potentially vulnerable people around me. There is a risk that some will not listen and a risk that my life will be jeopardized for taking what some will perceive as a "militant stance." For one person to be courageous enough to speak up so that the lives of so many other humans and sentient creatures would be spared? That is for me what makes it so necessary that we do not lose or weaken our individual liberties. I am able to print and distribute information, call meetings and mobilize peaceful protests. The paradox of putting my own life at risk is the chance that one must take when faced with a situation where others are unwilling to speak up against what they believe to be a more powerful entity (and so what appears to be a powerful entity is created through fear and lack of true information). What we have lost in America is a quality of altruism, of understanding and accepting that each individual does not exist in a box more splendid and impenetrable than their neighbor's or co-worker's or a person who lives halfway across the world. A "group" of people wholly inspired to bring about the same good results will not be plagued with instability. You will see this cooperative spirit in those working to stop huge wildfires or ecological disasters. You will see this cooperative spirit in people who've survived disasters and are coping with the trauma by searching for other survivors. I wouldn't be wondering about the color of someone's skin or their philosophy if they were in the rubble of a collapsed or burning building, would you? I concern myself with safety on the local level, where an individual can do the greatest good. If more were concerned with the problems NEAR them, national safety might not have become such a hot button. Americans would probably be known more for their intelligent character and decency than their frenzy for acquisition and need for passive entertainment.
This is what a republic is. Look up the definition of democrat and republic. In a democratic society the mob rules, it doesnt matter whos right. That is very dangerous because a dictator can easily coerce society into committing war crimes with no regards to humanity. Everybody is somebody and this collective idea is what we saw in Hitler.
The founding fathers referred to democracy as "tyranny of the majority". Benjamin Franklin once said that democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for supper, and liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. If we don't protect the liberty of the individual, security, and even democracy are worthless. Liberty is simple: my rights end, where yours begin, and vise versa. "There is little value in ensuring the survival of the nation if our traditions do not survive with it."
Groups are nothing more than categories of individuals. The rights of certain individuals compromised for the benefit of the group is nothing more than the rights of certain people compromised for the benefit of some other individuals. However, everyone deserves equal rights. National safety is nothing more than the security of the rights of the individuals. Therefore, rights of the individual compromised for national safety is a contradiction in itself.
Liberty is far more valuable than security. I'd much rather perish with my freedoms intact than live a life of servitude and obedience to the all-powerful, all-protective state. There's a reason that dystopian societies are portrayed as omni-pervasive and not minimal, ineffectual things. Of course, business is just another master, but business you can at least trust to do what's profitable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When we are born, our parents protect us by giving us limits on what we can and cannot do. Once we are mature, we'd better have learned to fend for ourselves because we cease to allow our parents to limit us. They knew best but now that we are grown, we know best. That's natural law; freedom of choice and ultimate accountability. Enter the government. They'd tell you they know best. They express that sentiment by passing more and more laws and regulations that limit what we can and cannot do. They do this in the name of public safety, the keyword being public. It's a license for them to enslave us and they are tightening the noose. Every single one of us HAS to have broken SOME regulation. Now, all they have to do is focus on an individual they wish to silence and gather data on them (hello NSA) and find a regulation that person has unknowingly violated (how could we possibly keep up with all of it and screw you who say ignorance is no excuse because there are tens of thousands of regulations). I could go on, but I think you get the gist of my supporting argument.
Freedom is what makes us individuals. Argurging for being safe rather than having your own freedoms is against anything a "free" country stands for. I would rather be unsafe then be a slave towards the government. No matter how many laws put on us it will not ensure our safety.
Personal rights are the fabric of America. It was the intent and goal of the first immigrants to establish religious freedom ! Virtually every immigrant since the begining have come here to rest and be protected from tyranny by the minority ! Their dream is freedom as well make their own way in life , to be the architect of their own destiny . All Americans realizing and knowing that all of their rights, are intact , are marching on Washington D.C. For the purpose of preventing a socialist take over of our rights , liberties , and precious freedom ! Where it goes from here is yet to be seen .
The Constitution is not just a good idea. It is the reason we have the nation we have. We must defend our personal freedoms.
If we allow the rights our founding fathers fought for to be taken in the name of safety, we create a world that is neither safe nor free.
The argument that national security is of greater importance than preserving our liberty is an argument against everything the United States stands for.
Our civil liberties granted by the Bill of Rights were won through the blood of the revolutionary war and all the brave men and women who stood up to tyranny despite their own security.
A risk to security is nothing compared to the risk of tyranny. Where is the line? How many of your rights are you willing to give up to feel safer? Does it end when there's a camera on every street and in every home? Would we be safer?
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.
When thinking about this, national safety is what makes each individual person who and what they are. Because the have the rights to be free people and express ourselves as we wish to do, we can be who we truly envision ourselves to be. National safety does not outweigh this in general, because the majority of people is supportive of national safety to begin with. Thus, ensuring the rights of the individual will support national safety as well. When it comes to serious situations where the national safety is threatened so strongly that the nation itself may not withstand the pressure, it is, however, necessary to temporarily give national safety more importance than our individual rights. This is the case because if the nation itself as we know it collapses, our individual rights are not guaranteed anymore and may be taken away completely as compared to only a partial and temporary impact on our individual rights that serve to protect both national safety, as well as individual rights in the long run.
Personal freedom is an important aspect of cultures and society. Clearly though if you look at the United States or Canada there is something going terribly wrong in the economic system. Where 1% of the world owns 90% of the companies, there is a stench of greed and corruption that follows the idea of personal freedom. Where comparatively, look at the Scandinavian countries, they have an excellent economic industry and are able to to spend more then half of the gathered tax money to spend back on the people. Nordic culture is known for its collectivism but everyone is allowed there personal freedom. A government looking after a country should put the needs of the whole before the individual otherwise your national safety is corrupted by the greed of the few. I think people are so scared of being controlled they forget that organization does not equal lack of freedom. In some cases it can lead to great thinkers and inventors.
I think security of a nation is more important because I think individual rights are useless when you don’t feel safe at all. If people only care about their own rights then it would be jeopardizing the whole nation. People only care about themselves these days and only care about their own well-beings and not others. Its only one persons right versus other people in the nations rights.
You must be alive to benefit from rights. That being said, if an instance occurs that Freedom of Speech could threatens lives, the only logical course to take is to not allow that person/entity to carry out the act that most would deem a free act, and for this reason, you must vote No
It is hard for us to life without a safety nation.If our nation is unsafe , and we can't live a stable life. So we need to protect our country. So sometimes we need to sacrifice our self for our country. We need to live for something more important than our individual life. For example, some men want to join a war even though they know they could easily die. Why? Because they believe their country or certain beliefs are more important than their own life.
It's a simple logical fact: Dead people don't have rights. National safety will always come before individual rights because that is what allows you to have rights in the first place. We submit to a government in return for safety so we have rights not to be killed or wronged by others. Only a legitimate government provides national safety since they are abiding by the social contract, so we don't have to worry about corruption. Not only does ensuring national safety indicate that one is under a legitimate government, but it also ensures that we have the most basic right to life, and with life, comes the opportunity to receive other individual rights. Therefore, national safety clearly outweighs.
As much as it'd be nice to have both personal rights and national security, we can't. Our lives come first, not our rights. We all want to live a happy life, but before we get to dealing with personal rights, we want to make sure that we will be alive for the day that we get them.
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
What if you have a case where terrorists have taken a nuclear power plant and threaten to blow it up, causing radiation poisoning for a large group of people? A reporter learns that law enforcement is about to attack and take out the terrorists, and he wants to announce it on live television, because of his right of freedom of speech and free press protections under the Bill of Rights. But if he does, thousands may be harmed. You have to have a balance.
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.
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.
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.
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.