• Security sometimes take precedence over freedom.

    According to John Locke, we sacrifice some freedoms in exchange for the security of civilization. Governments are then formed to insure that security. The United States Constitution is based on many of Locke's principles, including this one. It is, therefore, evident that citizens of any country agree to give up some of their freedoms in the name of security. This does mean, however, that government is entitled to absolute rule or to put laws into place that warrant security measurements that are extreme or unnecessary.

  • No, freedom takes precedence over security.

    By its very definition, freedom inherently involves a certain amount of risk. Those who have the ability to make their own individual choices on how to live their lives risk many chances of both success and failure. To unduly limit individual freedom in the guise of security is an unacceptable shackle on freedom.

  • No, because freedom is what people fight for in the first place.

    Benjamin Franklin said that those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, meaning that freedom is not really freedom it when it is compromised over a security threat. People who want freedom must be willing to sacrifice security for it, which is the cost of liberty.

  • No, freedom is security from tyranny

    It is not up to the government or anyone else to decide what is safe for everyone. If the government takes security too far, it can lead to tyranny, taking away all the people's choices. It's always better for the people to decide for themselves how safe they want to be.

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