Amazon.com Widgets
  • Freedom is more important than security because it provides greater opportunities for growth.

    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.

    Posted by: R4yCher
  • Freedom is more important than security, because security without freedom is worthless.

    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.

    Posted by: MarkBuII
  • Those who would give up liberty...

    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."

  • Listen to what my boy Benjamin once said.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

  • Yup.

    If you're in prison, you're safer but have a lot less freedom. Anyone want to voluntarily incarcerate themselves?

  • YES YES YES

    we can create security within freedom. Why not have both, rather than just one?

    Posted by: TUF
  • Freedom > Security.

    Using the logic that Freedom < Security, we should just lock all of us up in rooms, and feed us. There. Completely safe, and secure.

  • Freedom is 1st amendment in the US constitution

    Lose freedoms for security, what's next? Everyone WILL BE Atheist because we don't won't anyone hating others due to religion. Everyone WILL LISTEN to Heavy Metal because it makes you work out your anger issues in a better way. Everyone WILL ONLY watch the Tennessee Titans because it is the ONLY football team that matters and then no fights will break out. Having no choice would make the WORLD so much better. ---

    Security is an illusion. If you take these steps then no one will be able to get through? Until the one that DOES. Saying that, it doesn't mean we shouldn't take certain steps to make sure a door is closed in a movie theater.

  • Security without freedom; the life of a dead man

    Leading a life with security but without freedom is simply life not worth living. For instance, let's say you were a person who was confined in a room where you were to never go outside or ever feel the grass beneath your feet again because it simply wouldnt be "secure/safe". What effects would this have on a person? Depression, suicidal thoughts...

    This is simply the reason why "secure" individuals like princesses or well protected young mistresses long for freedom. Long to know the feeling of being independent and being able to do what you want(given that it is legal of course).

    People can do lots of things, but one thing we can never do is live a life without freedom...

  • Freedom over Security

    While security is essential, it exists to keep a person's freedoms safe(thus holding freedoms in higher regard). The purpose of freedom is to act accordingly when something for security purposes steps a boundary that shouldn't be crossed. It acts as a check by individuals towards the government for when laws start to infringe on the unalianable freedoms all individuals should have.

  • Secure our freedoms

    Without measures of security, Our freedoms we value so much are in jeopardy. The social contract implies a responsibility from us as citizens - a quid pro quo - giving up some of our rights to protect those rights. The balance has to be achieved in order for all of our freedoms to be protected. Security applies to our rights - it encompasses more than just our physical safety. We want to be secure in our travel, In our finances, In our freedom to express ourselves, So when in times of conflict especially, Some have to be limited so in the long term they are all protected.

  • Safety is more important to society

    Without safety there can be no freedom. Would you rather be safe than free? Most people would want to be safe. Looking at the gun right debate, "anti-gun" individuals want to restrict freedom to hopefully increase safety with reducing deaths in mass shootings. Regarding H. L. Mencken, Safety is what society wants, It doesn't means they necessarily have it currently, It is just idealized, Rather than having personal, Economic, Or political freedom.

  • Its just not

    I frikced ur mom, Just cause i could, Your dad watched. And I think he liked it. Yup. Yup. Yup/. Ypu. Ypu / yuo skajfd sd f sd fs f sdf sa f a sd f ag asdfasd f asdf ds f sf sdf d. This whole 50 word thing is dum.

  • Thomas Hobbes' Writing

    If you read the basic foundations of modern political science, You would understand that humans exist in the state of nature as inherently free, Independent and individual entities. To some, This may seem a dream. But, As Hobbes describes it, Life under this state of nature with complete freedom is poor, Nasty, Solitary, Brutish, And short. Indeed — freedom without the security of a ruling state is not a life I would like to live. "I would rather die a starving freeman than a fat slave. " No, Thanks! I'm fine with being a normal citizen, With laws to follow and duties to fulfill, In exchange for security. We must strike a balance with the state -- ensuring we have enough freedom to replace the government if necessary, But not so much that we are made unsafe.

    This is the continual debate in US politics: freedom versus safety (equality). It is not an either or. . . But in the modern political scene, I'll vote for safety, Because the parties calling for liberty are in reality calling for a brutal, Harsh, Cold, Capitalistic state of nature in which the strong rule the weak. Pass!

  • Security is more important

    The amount of security in a country could be a life or death situation for many citizens and if that situation comes to be, which would you rather have more security and alive, or less security but because of the reduced amount of security you are dead and most likely many others.

  • Safety First and Always

    Security is more important than Freedom because imagine yourself as a person in a country where there is war. You have a family and you want to get out of the country. Just because you want to flee the country for freedom doesn't mean you are going to leave the country safely. In fact, there will only be a 0.01% chance in you and your family leaving the country. So if you lose your family while you flee the country, you just lost everything you had to live for.

  • If you're not safe, you might be dead.

    Look. We could easily have a country with no laws, total freedom, and no government. But would we be safe? No. We would be in a world where chaos reigned, and anyone could kill or rob. But there would be total freedom, right? Actually, here's the issue. You might very well be dead because there is no security. Thumbs up me for a free imaginary hug!

  • Without security our freedom goes away

    If we do not have security there are no laws and we will have a permanent purge. With the purge going on people will be too afraid to leave their houses or everyone will be killed off. That would then be the end of the country as we know it.

  • Without security there would be a permanent purge.

    If the country had full freedom and no security there would be nothing stopping people from killing each other. We would have a Purge for the rest of the country's life. Which would not be long at all. We may want more freedom, but I would rather be alive than dead.

  • By the numbers.

    Lets run this by the numbers. There are 30 confirmed cases where significant terrorists events were thwarted due to the authorities granted to federal agencies as a result of the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 and other post 9/11 acts. Specifically, the authorities granted under Title VII, section 702 were extremely instrumental in these efforts. 30 situations that could've resulted in a significant loss of American lives. I'm talking attacks on the order of 9/11. So, what's the argument against that? If you want to debate, then debate. I don't care about what you "think" or what you "feel." It's absolutely irrelevant. What are your facts to the contrary? Facts, not gibberish derived from your liberal echo chambers. I mean what facts substantiate that the measures taken to safeguard our citizenry (30 attacks averted) were unjust and in any harmed the people of this country? If you can't provide facts, and can only come back with useless comments, then you're only demonstrating your complete ignorance of the situation and are quite frankly wasting your time. It's better to remain silent and let others think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove yourself one.


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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.