Do you think that security and freedom are in opposition to each other?

Question

If not, can you give a SMALL example how you can be secure and still not limit freedom?

let me rephrase. Are they in TENSIOn to each other? I am now free to fly knowing that I probably wont get blown up by a liquid bomb, BUT I'm not free to bring a bottle of water on boad now am I?

Answer 1

I'd rephrase it to say that there is a "tension" between the two rather than an opposition.

However it's characterized, there will be relatively less freedom as security is increased.

The question has been, is, and will ever be: how much freedom must we give up in the interests of having sufficient security?

Answer 2

The tension between security and freedom (in the Western democratic sense of the term) is indirect, originating not from the measures legitimately taken to increase security, but from the potential for these measures to be abused. The tension might be somewhat alleviated if steps were taken to legally ensure that new security measures can only be used in the manner intended. For instance, provided a fairly strict and clear definition of what constitutes "terrorism", the Patriot Act could be amended such that evidence obtained through its provisions could only be used to prosecute conspiracies to commit terrorism. Unfortunately, the tendency of the Bush administration to sidestep the law in its security policies leaves the large potential for current or future abuse that would indeed harm freedom.

Answer 3

You can have security and liberty! But I do agree with your statement, no matter what the circumstances, when security increases, liberty decreases. In order to keep us safe, the government is now preventing liquids on planes. This is a great thing! The government's function is to keep us safe, I am elated that they are fulfilling their duties! We are now more secure. But our liberty has decreases a tiny bit, where now we are not FREE to take water on a plane. You say what rights do Americans have? Freedom of religion, press, right to vote.........etc...........but NOT the right to TAKE WATER ON A PLANE!!! I'm exaggerating of course to make a point. There is not a big problem with that policy. But you are correct. More security, less liberty.

But the point is as long as the government strikes a fair balance between the two, it's not a big deal.

Another example: Citizens of the US have a right to be secure in their homes and on their person and the police may not conduct "unreasonable searches and seizures" such as coming into your home without a warrant. This is our LIBERTY. Now there is also an exception to this rule where the police can come into a home under "exigent circumstances" defined as "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts." This is for our SECURITY. We want police to be able to come in to save our lives if a criminal is about to kill us and we scream and an officer hears our cries for help. BUT, if the police officer sees a marijuana plant (for example) in your home after saving you, he or she can arrest you and the plant (evidence) IS ADMISSIBLE in court due to exigent circumstances and it was in plain sight. So with our SECURITY, there is a slight (but in rare cases) decrease in our LIBERTY. But it is more than tolerable, and it is certainly NOT a slippery slope to more oppression. Obviously we are not free to just walk right onto a plane without a metal detector and sit, but it is for our safety from terrorists, yet it is by definition a decreases in liberty to FORCE us to go through a metal detector. It all just depends on how much the populace can take. We revolted in the 1770's from England because we could no take the lack of liberty in taxation and the Intolerable Acts without representation. Eventually, it seems, over time the current American government will inevitably reach a point where we will have to again revolt to regain our liberties lost in the face of security. Maybe this will be in 500 years or in 10,000. But we can't have anarchy now can we? Actually, some say we can. I disagree.

Answer 4

I THINK I understand what you're trying to ask.
Often, we have ben asked to give up some of our freedoms for security. This goes back to the founding of our Country and I'm not going to waste time setting forth examples.
Gun restrictions - things CHANGE. When they wrote the Bill of Rights every household needed a gun - for hunting for food if nothing else. That doesn't jive with AK-47's on present day city streets.
Giving up your water bottle is a small price to pay for security, don't you think?

Answer 5

Sure, the airports are tightening their security, I just make sure I pack all my lotions and stuff in my checked baggage, and I can fly where I want and enjoy my vacation. It's no different than getting a tune up on the car before you head out on a cross country trip. Just a little preventive maintenance can go a long way. Same concept as security.

Answer 6

Isn´t there a price to everything? I mean, when you want to drive your car somewhere (freedom) you have to buckle up, look where your going and not talk on the phone (security).

Answer 7

Was it Benjamin Franklin who said,"If you give up your liberty in order to gain security, you will have neither". Guarding our borders and vastly limiting immigration would make us more secure without limiting our freedom.