Freedom Versus Security

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Many political discussions seem to center upon what is most important to the situation at the moment: freedom or security.

Some people incorporate freedom and security in their ideology.

In America, many conservatives advocate freedom in economic issues and security in social issues.

Liberals like it just the other way around: freedom in social issues and security in economic issues.

Libertarians like freedom in both.

Whereas securitarians want security in both.

I like a dynamic balance of the two whereever possible.

But most don’t.

Many say generally that there’s too little freedom in this and that and that those in favor of security are “killing creativity and creating a police state”.

Others say generally there’s too little security in this and that and that those in favor of freedom are “destroying morality and letting terrorists into the country”.

Some people just seem to be “in love” with freedom or “in love” with security.

I wonder why?

So where are you on this matter of freedom versus security?

What’s your preference?

2

I stand on the side of freedom.
“Those who give up freedom for security wind
up with neither” Ben Franklin

If we aren’t free, there is no point to having security.

Kropotkin

3

I think it’s a lot of bourgeois bullshit penned by the power elite to keep the plebians busy while they bend us over and quielty insert the government dick.

The only true freedom is might. Same for security. If one lacks the ability to impose their will, and defend their interests they have neither freedom nor security, only what they are granted by those who do.

But that’s just me.

4

Jim deGriz:I think it’s a lot of bourgeois bullshit penned by the power elite to keep the plebians busy while they bend us over and quielty insert the government dick.
The only true freedom is might. Same for security. If one lacks the ability to impose their will, and defend their interests they have neither freedom nor security, only what they are granted by those who do.

K: ah, the nietzschian defense for greed and selfishness.
Under your theory, we would still be in the stone age,
living a hobbesian nightmare of every man for him or her self.

It is not via the strong getting their will that build civilization,
but of people working together. civilization was built by people
working together in in groups of various sizes, working
toward a mutually beneficial goal. Goals of security, freedom,
and survivial.

Kropotkin

5

That would only be the case if everyone who has ever existed agreed with my statement. There are always those willing to capitulate and those eager for power. How do they get that power? It isn’t by asking nicely.

Who decided that civilization is a good thing? But regardless, it is because some strong person with a vision decided to cajole, either with a carrot or a stick, everyone else into doing things their way. Civilization was created to enhance the survivalability of the species, that’s all. It has no apparent moral value.

6

Peter Kropotkin: ah, the nietzschian defense for greed and selfishness.
Under your theory, we would still be in the stone age,
living a hobbesian nightmare of every man for him or her self."

JIM: That would only be the case if everyone who has ever existed agreed with my statement. There are always those willing to capitulate and those eager for power. How do they get that power? It isn’t by asking nicely.

K: One theory is people willingly created kings,
the vikings for example had kings that were elected.
Electing kings is not grabbing power.

Peter Kropotkin:
It is not via the strong getting their will that build civilization,
but of people working together. civilization was built by people
working together in in groups of various sizes, working
toward a mutually beneficial goal. Goals of security, freedom,
and survivial."

JIM: Who decided that civilization is a good thing? But regardless, it is because some strong person with a vision decided to cajole, either with a carrot or a stick, everyone else into doing things their way. Civilization was created to enhance the survivalability of the species, that’s all. It has no apparent moral value."

K:Leviathan. … “and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty,
brutish, and short” thus describing life without civilization,
a life where every man is at war with every other man.

It is not a pretty scene.

And I never suggested it had a moral value and civilization
beats the hell out of the vision of Hobbes of people without
civilization.

Kropotkin

7

Security and freedom are essentially the same. But “freedom” in the sense you use it here is freedom from other things than “security” as you use it here. Yet both essentially mean mastery; only one in complete control is really free and secure. But that would mean controlling the whole, and therefore being beyond the whole. But there is nothing beyond the whole. Therefore, there cannot be real freedom or real security. Only relative freedom and security, conditional freedom and security. If one wants to be secure from certain things, one must be dependent on other things. Likewise, if one wants to be free from certain things, one must be in danger of other things.

8

Oh damn it Mr. K, an issue we absolutely agree upon!!!

The end of the world is nigh. Let us savor these, our last moments.

9

Mas, you just need more indoctrination…I mean, political education :imp: .

Seriously, reread Sauwelios’ post. He nailed it.

Of course, I understand that the Mas rules are inviolate - but it might assist in understanding why those who frequently agree…deviate. Not that it really matters. Just sayin’.

10

Interesting.

Do you have a political ideology, you know, like conservative, liberal, libertarian, securitarian, etc., and would you explain what your ideology is to you?

11

From a purely philosophical perspective, Sauwelios is definitely correct.

But, I tend towards the more pragmatic perspective of “what is”, which is what the quote from Benjamin Franklin, I believe, is pointing towards: Politically motivated interference in lives of individuals, removing liberties, for a proposed “safeness”, at the hands of government entities with alterior agendas.

On the other issue, the AF tried a number of times to “re-educate” me …
they seem to have failed. :frowning:

12

You need a healthy balance between the two.

It is the history of the world that the strong dominate the weak. This is still happening on all points of the globe, but the strong realise that it’s wise to dominate in a more entertaining manner.

Getting back to the point, in order for weak people to have the illusion of freedom they need to have others ready (police, etc) ready to limit the freedom of others.

We’ve seen recently in the US a rash of murderers entering, I say that rather than breaking in because they didn’t have to, school and killing students. The weak and innocent children should have the freedom to learn in peace, but this is not a reality, because it’s easy to violate.

A magnetically locked entry point with a guard behind bullet-proof glass controlling the point would all but stop such school shootings. Now, this would limit a percent of the freedom at school, but open up a vast amount of freedom for the students inside, as they would be free from worry and would be able to study in peace.

So, freedom is won at the barrel of a gun.

13

I just did a test at http://www.theadvocates.org, and it yielded the following result:

I think this is pretty accurate.

14

In fact, the only statement to which I agreed was “Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet”. This is because I think a Strong State should be strong enough to permit itself criticism. And, come to think of it, I think the perversities of press, media and Internet should be voluntarily abstained from by the individual in favor of State Culture.

15

Sauwelios:http://www.theadvocates.org, and it yielded the following result:

K: I took the test and It yielded surprise, LIBERAL.
Wow, who knew?

Kropotkin

16

I had taken this test several years ago. I got the same results this time.

I think this is pretty accurate.

17

After reading of your DUI experience, this doesn’t surprise me.

More people like you would make this world a little more perfect. :stuck_out_tongue:

I love it when people stand up for my “right” to be an asshole - 'cause I know I don’t always do it. Sometimes I’m a lilly-livered chicken.

18

I came out exactly the same as yopele, that quiz is way too small though…if I could recall the site I would link to a much better one.

Although I would have to say this…

…is pretty accurate for me.

I’m interested though as to who in here would oppose these things fore-mentioned and why?

19

You must be kidding. :smiley:

No, seriously, I once read something that claimed that a surprising number of Americans (around 30-40%) are actually very libertarian in their thinking. The problem is, I think, we are simply never offered candidates that represent the majority of our individual views. We are always forced to select candidates based on a few issues.

I have voted predominantly Libertarian in every election in which I was eligible to vote. I never voted for Bush.

20

The young and middle to upper-class maybe. But the old and poor want their government entitlements. Darn them…