If you're in prison, you're safer but have a lot less freedom. Anyone want to voluntarily incarcerate themselves?
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Freedom trumps "security" in my opinion because of two reasons. 1) Pragmatically, if people are free, they are able to create their own safety freely, with NO restriction. 2) On a personally philosophical level, freedom is simply an inherent value and, if you want to use the term, "right."
Without freedom, high security runs the risk of eroding into fascism or a totalitarian state. Slaves in America lived in a fairly secure environment, but lacked freedom. What kind of life is this? A free society comes with inherent risks. However, it is better to be free and potentially unsafe, rather than to be secure and oppressed.
Freedom is more important for many people than security because it affords endless possibilities in life. A nation where citizens are free to chose their careers, their homes and jobs is profitable and content. A less secure nation involves risk, but at least it has the potential to develop intellectually. I personally would rather have the choice to make my own decisions, I can also obtain my own security through hard work.
If you have security you are being watched over by the people keeping you "safe" all the time. Freedom should never be taken away by anyone life is a risk if you make it a risk that all on you remember that. That is why we have insurance companies for that risk. Dont press security on everyone that want freedom we are not slave we are people and need to enjoy the fresh air without someone watching over us.
Now when you look at freedom and national security the first thing that you have to realize is that they can usually both exist without ever coming into conflict. When they do come into conflict we have to look at the importance of each one.
Now what we have to realize is that freedom is an intrinsic value and it can only be used to a certain extent without losing its propose and unfortunately many times when people think of freedom vs. National security they look at an abuse of each. But what ends up being more intrinsically valuable is freedom.
A quote from author Rosa Alexander says "Nothing is as precious as one's freedom. Dreams, aspirations, and ideals mean nothing if one does not have the freedom to pursue them"
Now national security is also very valuable, it protects our lives but without valuing freedom national security can many times harm our true protection. Take for example both Nazi Germany and now in Syria. These governments believed that they were upholding national security while instead they were harming there citizens because lack in valuing freedom.
Believe it or or we are being tricked into giving up our freedom. We are safer now than we have ever been but our preception is of a dangerous world; manufactured by those who would like to relieve us of our rights. Don't fall for it! It is all a ruse.
On the list of the military sound countries Russia is number 2 and China is number 3.
We can obviously see that China is military sound but are they keeping their citizens safe? The answer to that is no. According to freedomhouse.Org China’s media was the most restrictive in the world in 2012. Litverse.Com shows us something else! China’s citizens, working people, are being tortured with electric batons, abuse, having parts of their bodies broken, and electrocution. Many other things, of unspeakable pain, are inflicted on people to keep National Security safe.
My point is that if a country values military above freedoms, which freedom of press is part of, people get hurt. Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I take this to mean that to give a freedom doesn’t guarantee safety.
I think what makes free market economy countries unique and special is it gives both consumers and producers choice. I'm only a student studying economics so I'm not an expert, but please hear me out. In order to ensure complete group safety, scarcity of goods must be eliminated; this means that resources must be equally split among everyone. The pro-side; everyone get's food/clothing/shelter. The down-side: there is no personal freedom or choice. It is because the U.S. and other free market economies value personal freedom that great leaders in the economy like Bill Gates were able to create massive, positive effects on culture and society. Without personal freedom, neither Microsoft nor Apple may have never been started, and few people would probably be on debate.Org today.
If you think having all your freedoms you could ever want with limited security would be amazing, you should just stop talking and log off this site. Your gonna wake up with all your freedoms until some other country comes and takes you over. Now you have no freedom's and at the moment your enslaved or dead.
My reasoning are as fallows:
1)Take away your pride and see that we are safe in the little net the government gives us
2) Lose someone you care about and then tell me freedom is greater than security
As H.L. Mencken once said “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.”
Freedom is worthless if you wake up the slave of another country, or if you never wake up at all but die because you were foolish enough not to do what was needed to be done.
After the serious events of 9/11, we, as a nation, need to realize that we are not immune to attacks on our people. The thousands of people that died in the terrorist attacks could have been avoided, with proper security. It is understandable that this idea should not be taken too far, but it is a priority. As a nation, we do not appear to be well-liked worldwide, even if we attempt to provide international assistance.
If you get rid of security, there would be no laws around security. No laws means that people could go around the streets killing any one they wanted to and harming people. It would be anarchy. 100% freedom would still be limited because you can never be truly 'free'. There will always be obstacles in the way to stop complete freedom. Ergo, ben is gay
A small amount of safety is not worth any amount of a loss of liberty. Remember German history from the 1930's. If you don't remember, read. The liberties and freedoms of the German people were taken small bits at a time in a way that they could agree with having more safety, until, they had neither.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin
“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
― Thomas Jefferson
The real question is "Is the freedom to Die ore important than Securing Life?" I look at my children and say proudly that I will give up my calling list and location and anything else to protect my children. We voluntarily give up our freedom on these Social Networks every day! I have absolutely nothing to hide! Do You??
Without safety there is no freedom. Freedom comes when people know they are safe. If they feel unsafe, they will not feel free. Would you go out into the world not knowing that atanytime you could be attacked or killed? Safety could detect these things and help us to defeat the fear we have as humans in this contemporary society!
I often here this brought up, but the problem is that security is basically designed to ensure that one can practice basic freedoms. If we have no security, then people can harm us when we practice our freedoms. A certain amount of security is necessary for freedom. As such, I consider security marginally more important than freedom, /especially/ since when this argument is brought up, it usually involves a small amount of freedom and a great deal of security. Obviously one must analyze the trade-off closely.