Why does security mean loss of liberty?

Question

For over 40 years we faced the threat of total global thermonuclear anihilation yet retained more individual civil liberties than we do now after a few nutters blew up a couple of buildings (terrible as that was)

Answer 1

During the cold war it was the actions of one government against another, they just watched each other and the citizens didn't play any part in it. The mess that is going on now is more based on an individual doing as much damage as possible to other individuals for no good reason. So the government now have to look at every individual person to determine which one will be the next one to blow up a bus full of children, airplane, train or store front. Law abiding people don't mind being watched because they don't do anything wrong. But people that have bad intentions do, causes them to have a harder time killing innocent people. If we ever stop all this then governments will quit watching individuals and go back to watching each other.

Answer 2

If you begin in the 1950s, you will see a slow slippage of rights and an increase in both the laws regarding civil liberties and the enforcement of the laws. The FBI and now Homeland Security have unprecedented powers to observe, wire-tap, surveil and photograph but it began a long time ago....Hoover (J. Edgar) compiled countless dossiers on many prominent citizens as well as his 'blackmail' list, McCarthy did the same but he used smear tactics rather than facts. It is a slow strangling tactic of rights. Now if you read the news, the media (puppetized by the government) harps on illegals and the supposed 11 million or so illegals....did they all arrive overnight?....seems to me that it was a slow infiltration...and how did the government obtain that number....could it be a step to create a national ID system where everyone must be photographed and fingerprinted and perhaps even DNA tagged, perhaps a family registry and a family book controlled by the local police to control the huddled masses. On the other hand, the illegals pose another question that our government should answer....we have this marvelous new agency...Homeland Security....if Poncho Peasant can walk into the US...why can't terrorists? If Mexico is the biggest supplier of illegal drugs, why can't explosives be smuggled in the same way...So Border Patrol, Homeland Security and the FBI needs to answer some very valid questions.

Answer 3

Increased security should not immediately lead to a loss of liberty. Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserved neither and would lose both. The reason for this is that it eventually could lead to having a government much like a dictatorship or a monarchy.

Take Hitler for example, he claimed that it was for Germany's sake that all Jews or certain people of his country be put into camps...and well, look at what happened. The US, back during WWII, claimed that for security purposes, we place Japanese Americans into camps. We stripped them of all their belongings, lands, money, etc and placed them all in internment camps. (German-Americans were not as feverishly persecuted).

If we allow our government to strip away our rights and freedoms we are placing ourselves at the mercy of men. As humans, we all have faults, we aren't likely to be accepting of all people. We could open ourselves up to genocide, racism, discrimination of all sorts. That would strip us not only of our rights but basic human dignity.

In another example, take the African American Civil Rights Movement. Some Whites at the time claimed that slavery was essential for the survival of African Americans because they were incapable of caring for themselves. African Americans were stripped of their liberty as Americans and could not even voice their opinion or vote.

When we give Government absolute power over our lives..how are we to protect ourselves if something goes wrong? We must learn from history, it is the only way we can avoid tripping over the same rocks or repeating our mistakes. If this hasn't worked in the past...why do we believe that it will work now? No, security is not worth losing my liberty or potentially, my dignity as a human being.

Answer 4

It doesn't have to. There are ways to implement security, just as effective, within the laws we have and without violating constitutional provisions, and within resulting in lost of civil rights.

The current administration simply chooses to ignore the constitution, because it's easier to control things that way. It's either gross negligence or malice, because the government is violating people's rights and ignoring constitutional requirements for no reason.

Everything the government wants to do it can do within the laws. Bush just don't think the laws apply to him.

Answer 5

Security does not mean a loss of liberty if we stand up against this point of view that is slowly being fed to the American public.

Answer 6

To protect us. As a parent, if a rapist in loose in my neighborhood, I will not let my daughter go out at night. She may feel I am being overprotective, but I am keeping her safe. The threat of thermonuclear war is not like terrorist running around right here in our own neighborhoods. I am all for being overprotective, if it will save lives.

Answer 7

It doesn't (or at least shouldn't). If we give up freedom for security, we must ask ourselves what, exactly, we're trying to secure.

It brings to mind Benjamin Franklin's (oft reiterated) statement:
"Those who would give up a little liberty for the sake of security deserve neither and will lose both."

Answer 8

During WWll, many people lost some of their liberties. They had to ration, and work harder. Sometimes people have to give up things for the good of all. Deal with it.

Answer 9

Hitler used it as an excuse to control the german public with an iron fist...

I'm sure our benevolent loving and caring government would never ever do something like that though...

Answer 10

Security is the only way to preserve liberty.