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