Freedom in the positive sense -
Freedom from fear and oppression. Freedom from want, from squalor, from disease.
We are truly free when we don't fear about losing our jobs or not being able to provide for our families.
It's morally important that people are free. Otherwise they can't make a true choice between right or wrong. If it's a matter of death or stealing food, a person's most likely going to steal food. It would be unjust to blame them too harshly for this - rather the responsibility should fall heaviest upon the shoulders of those who *could* have prevented the person from having to make a choice between death or theft.
With true, positive freedom comes true choice. From true choice comes true moral responsibility.
And once again, I stumble upon a question that deserves more than just a "Yes" or "No" answer. I feel like freedom is a far more popular choice; it's nice to live in a world where you're not restricted and you can do as you please, but unfortunately those freedoms that we take for granted are being taken away from us, either through government and/or the negative actions of another human being.
If we give up our freedoms to gain safety we will lose both
I would rather have freedom with danger than safe servitude
it seems like these days we are giving up our rights and freedom for safety
we are giving up the right to bear arms so that there will be less gun violence
we are giving up our privacy and we are having to go through unnecessary searches so that it will be more safe to fly on an airplane.
Freedom, admittedly, sounds far greater than safety; however, safety gives freedom. With safety allows an environment where no one can be harmed, and will give freedom to the people in time.
Its like being a young child who is still learning about his or her world. With no parent supervision, where the child gets him or herself into a dilemma where he or she needs help, but he or she ran to far away because of having freedom, without regulation. With safety, it gives freedom; its just done in time.
So the question really is: "Would you rather be impatient with more harm, or patient with less harm in the environment"?
The answer to that question is easy if you take the time to research it. The chicken is a descendant of the reptilian family currently dating back to the prehistoric age. Some evidence found in collagen shows that the chicken evolved from the T-Rex...Really!!! Yes, the T-Rex's closest living relative is the Chicken, preceded by the Jungle Fowl. So the egg came before the chicken.
Anyway, here it's the same question. What comes first, freedom or safety? Well, let's look at the history of America. Pilgrims came here to Jamestown in 1608 looking for religious freedom from the English Crown. Well, they starved, died from disease, turned to cannibalism for two survivors to remain after a bad winter, and eventually we had to fight off the British twice (Revolution AND the war of 1812) before gaining our freedom.
So, you need safety before you can have freedom. I mean you can say you are free but are you really free if you aren't safe and have to fight disease, starvation, invaders, oppressive tyrannical royal crowns, and even your own family?
What is more important? Definitely safety. I'd rather be safe and chip away at being free than free and in fear of EVERYTHING.