Liberty is inherently dependent upon life to manifest itself in the world, which is to say that life is a prerequisite for liberty. Obviously, you have no right to free speech or protest if you do not even have a right to life. Insofar as this is true, life is significantly more important than liberty. This means that it is irrelevant how great liberty is, because if protecting liberties endangers lives, then all liberties are categorically destroyed.
Additionally, liberty exists on a sliding scale, while life is absolute. You either have the right to life, or you don't have a right to life. By contrast, you can have varying degrees of liberty. There are two ways in which this can work. Firstly, you might have access to some liberties (e.G. Freedom of speech) and not have a right to others (e.G. Right to punch someone). Secondly, you liberties can be curtailed, but still exist (e.G. A ban on hate speech, but other forms of free speech are allowed). In other words, liberties can be restricted, but still exist. Life cannot be restricted and still exist -- either you are alive or you are not.
This is important -- life has to be valued over liberty, because the elimination of life is irreversible, whereas the restriction of liberty is (1) reversible, and (2) not completely restrictive of rights. Thus, life should be valued over liberty.
The liberties we have can create an unintended consequence. Gun rights for all does inevitably lead to easy access for all. Then someone not mentally or emotionally equipped to deal with life events makes decides to murder. In spite of this we choose to keep guns readily accessible, yet feign sorrow for the loss of life. Secretly we covet our guns for fear of the exact situation having guns creates. Thus every mass shooting is justified by our silent consent.
I've never heard nor read weaker justifications for "Life" over "Liberty" than what I found here.
Let us be clear. This debate substitutes the general term "life" for what it means "security" or "safety." Or rather, should we value our safety over our liberty?
I find it quite ironic that those supporting the former do so by exercising the latter. Without liberty, these individuals would be unable to weigh-in on the debate. Moreover they would likely be unable to access a free forum on which they could even be introduced to the concept of liberty as a right vice a privilege.
Those who value their lives, safety or security over their liberty have lost that which defines America and Americans. It is our unswerving dedication to protecting the liberties of ALL people that defines us. The axiom that America is the "Land of the Free" is the most prevalent definition we have for our nation. Should we instead replace that with "Land of the Living?"
I have this proposed experiment for those who believe life, safety and security truly outweighs liberty: Incarcerate yourself. By which I don't mean a modern prison cell and penitentiary lifestyle, but rather place yourself in to a container in which you can brighter sit, nor stand nor turn around. Surrender your identity. Have neither a name nor a personality. Never think independently nor even dare to speak freely. Live your life at the will of another without question. Eat by their rule. Sleep by their rule. Breed by their rule. You will be safe. You will be secure. You will be alive. That is however all you will be.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
If your liberty came in conflict with my life, I would choose my life but on the other hand if your life came in conflict with my liberty, I would choose your life. If we allow liberty to take precedence over life unconditionally, we would see more unconscientious wars justified.
If we do not have life, there is no reason for freedom. If someone kills someone we should take away there liberty. But if we take away there life are we not the same as them. If you have to kill one person to save another, that is one life over another life. If to free five people you have to give up five lives, that is liberty over life. The tough decision is when you have to give up one life for the liberty of more than one person. You have to choose if life is more important than freedom. And I think that it is.
Every single example made that I can see, there are always other ways to figure it out besides the loss of life. As for killing someone, society can put that person in jail instead of issuing the death penalty (which, if I may add, is illegal in 12 states for a reason), and put them under maximum security, therefore keeping their life, and removing liberty. Sure, people that have killed may be put to death, taking away their life, but they shouldn't, because not only is death an immediate pain that kills them and does not last, a lifetime of jail, taking away their liberty, is mental pain that lasts for much longer.
Without liberty there is no life. Your life (black or otherwise) doesn't "matter". I would gladly trade lives to save a liberty. I do not believe in saving a live at the peril of any one liberty.
"if we can just save one life" is the cry of the weak, evil, and fear filled person. Remember... EQUAL DOES NOT MEAN SAME!!
The fact is, that the loss of valiant people is the cost to keep us free. We, citizens of the US, should believe that freedom is the most important characteristic to our existence which is why we revolted against the British in the first place. That is why life should not be valued over liberty.
When it comes down to it freedom for many is more important than the lives of a few. It is unfortunate people have to die when securing freedom for the oppressed or endangered but it is difficult to say the lives of some people are worth leaving people to suffer without hope of a free life.
BUT, to quote somebody famous I can't remember, "Life without liberty is a fate worse than death." Without any personal freedom, all that is humanity is lost. It becomes the life of an prized animal, ruled entirely by some master or another. Death would be preferable. By a long shot.
In theory, we want to value life as much as possible, and this is an important virtue. But at the same time, people should be free to do what they want as long as they do not hurt anyone else. Suicide makes for an excellent example because if a person wishes to commit suicide, they should have the liberty to do so, even if do not value their own life.
I believe that liberty stands for free live for all. You cannot take away liberty from anyone because it is then unsure if they have a life to live for at all. I am not sure if it is at all possible to have life without liberty. Liberty is the highest fundamental right we have in our society.
Liberty, one of the foundations of this country, is the basis for a great life. What is life if we live it condemned to a prisoner’s life? What would life be like if we did not have the freedom to attend church or speak out against the government? The question you should ask yourself is do you want to lead a life where you are free to choose your own path or do you want to live a life where you are told what to do and when to do it? For me, a life without liberty is a life not worth having.
Members of the United States Armed Forces put this question to the test on a daily basis. Life isn't worth living if it isn't free. Everyone has the right to choose his or her own path and nothing can take that away. Living in the chains of tyranny isn't worth a life--that's something the colonist understood and perhaps that is something that has been lost in our country over the past 20 years.
I know it's a famous line to say give me liberty or give me death but we are able to travel so easily these days why would anyone pick death ?
I believe if you feel that your government is being unjust then you should just leave there is no reason to turn things into a life or death battle.