security or freedom?

[Palefire]

Which would you sacrifice a portion of first to maintain the other; security of freedom?

[dazzleman]

There is no way I can answer this question because there is never either total security or total freedom.

In effect, we are, at the same time, sacrificing some freedom for security, but we are also sacrificing some security for freedom.

The question is whether we are doing this in a constructive and appropriate way.  In some cases yes, but in some cases no.

Crime, and our way of dealing with it, is a big part of this.  If we create too many protections for people who are clearly guilty, as we have done in many cases, we are inappropriately compromising the security of innocent people.  But we must have the proper protections to prevent innocent people from being wrongly charged.  It requires us to walk a tightrope, not choose a black-and-white polar extreme.

Terrorism is similar.  It is clearly necessary for some people to sacrifice some of their freedom to increase the security of society.  It must be done appropriately, but I see no reason we should have an open door policy for people who have no right to be here and who wish us harm, as many liberals effectively advocate, mirroring their approach toward crime.

It is really about finding the right mix between the freedom and security, not choosing between the two.

[Bono]

I misread the question. Subtract one vote from freedom(Other) and add to security(other)

[A18]

I will gladly give up my freedom to murder in exchange for security. Other freedoms, such as machine guns, however, clearly outweigh security.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

*insert Ben Franklin quote here*

[A18]

*insert Ben Franklin quote here*

I don't think Franklin opposed all laws, so it's really not relevant if you're going to take it out of context.

[J. J.]

Question:  Is it a free society if I need a license to drive a car, or if I can't keep tactical nuclear weapons in by drawing room?

[A18]

Question:  Is it a free society if I need a license to drive a car, or if I can't keep tactical nuclear weapons in by drawing room?

Not entirely free, no. You definitely shouldn't need a license to drive a car; it's just another tax, cleverly disguised.

Nuclear weapons are more questionable. I think if you have a legitimate purpose for them, you should be allowed to own as many nuclear weapons as you want, with proper government oversight, of course.

[Jake]

To a degree, I'd give up freedoms to preserve security. If to many freedoms are given up, I'm talking 1984 type stuff here, then security is not worth the massive intrusions on freedoms.

[John Dibble]

*insert Ben Franklin quote here*

I don't think Franklin opposed all laws, so it's really not relevant if you're going to take it out of context.

Indeed. The Ben Franklin quote mentions 'essential liberty' and 'temporary security' - the two key words are essential and temporary. Obviously, by having to pay taxes for the military and the police, I'm giving up a bit of freedom, but ultimately it's in exchange for security that is pretty much permanent and ensures the protection of my other freedoms. (I voted freedom by the way, as I don't think we really can be secure without it - in a free country you don't really have to worry about being taken away by the gestapo[oops, looks like I misread the question - sacrifice a bit of security to maintain freedom is what I meant])

[Democratic Hawk]

Security (Dem)

Dave

[Palefire]

My view of this is that we pay our government to maintain our security without hampering our freedom, note that I'm not speaking about non-citizens. If that job is too complex for those in power, then we should find people that can handle the job. If the job proves to complex for anybody, we should give up a bit of secrutity prior to giving up a bit of freedom. Too much blood was spilled to get the freedoms we have; to give them away because we are frightened cheapens what was done for us and brands us as cowards.

[Palefire]

As a side note; one can not sacrifice something one does not already have (i.e. total freedom & the freedom to murder) nor can one maintain something that one does not already have (i.e. total security and the right to own nuclear weapons).

[2952-0-0]

"They who give up freedom in exchange for security deserve neither freedom nor security."

[Jake]

"Those who leave us open to attack deserve to be shot"

[2952-0-0]

No. Freedom doesn't mean no security. Should murder be legal? Besides; not long ago I did a poll on whether you would like to live in North Korea (all the security you want, freedom is unheard of) or Somalia (government doesn't exist, but neither does security). And 100% of us chose the latter (though no one, except Bono, would live in either).

[Jake]

Obviously, it's beneficial to restrict the freedom to murder people the preserve security. Just like it is necessary to search bags when entering a stadium or allow pilots to carry sidearms or allow law enforcement access to a person's records. I don't see your point about the Korea/Somalia thing though.

[TomC]

Oops- I voted wrong, to. Take one from Freedom (D) and add one to security (D)

[Beet]

There is no way I can answer this question because there is never either total security or total freedom.

In effect, we are, at the same time, sacrificing some freedom for security, but we are also sacrificing some security for freedom.

The question is whether we are doing this in a constructive and appropriate way.  In some cases yes, but in some cases no.

Crime, and our way of dealing with it, is a big part of this.  If we create too many protections for people who are clearly guilty, as we have done in many cases, we are inappropriately compromising the security of innocent people.  But we must have the proper protections to prevent innocent people from being wrongly charged.  It requires us to walk a tightrope, not choose a black-and-white polar extreme.

Terrorism is similar.  It is clearly necessary for some people to sacrifice some of their freedom to increase the security of society.  It must be done appropriately, but I see no reason we should have an open door policy for people who have no right to be here and who wish us harm, as many liberals effectively advocate, mirroring their approach toward crime.

It is really about finding the right mix between the freedom and security, not choosing between the two.

Good point, dazzle. Sacrifice your freedom, and you won't have security. Sacrifice your security, and you won't have freedom.