Liberty vs. Security?

Question

If you had to choose liberty vs. security what would you choose? You have to give me a reason for your answer too. :)

Answer 1

Liberty. Because that's the whole foundation of our society. If you have liberty, you have the ability to provide your own security. If you rely on the state for security, what do you do when they fail?

Answer 2

That would depend of the amount of each. If we were reduced to a safe yet dominated police state, NO way. Yet on the other hand if this was a completly free Anarchist world where the strong prey on the weak there would be nothing left. We need a balance of some of each. Alittle more security durring times of war and a lot less while the world is at peace.

Answer 3

I would choose liberty. There is no security in the end if liberty is sacrificed. For example, according to the new detainee law, even legal us immigrants can be picked up as terrorists, then detained without recourse to the courts, tortured, and kept in prison indefinitely. Where is the security in that? What if that person was you? or your child ? or husband or wife? There is no security without liberity.

Answer 4

Liberty to the things I want to do security for what others want to do.

Answer 5

Liberty.

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin

The Soviet Union was very secure, they had the KGB for NSA style surveillance. Liberty, not so much for them.

Answer 6

not something new. It exchange into a similar for the time of the Civil conflict, the Immigration debate on the turn of the final century, international conflict 2 rationing and interment, the Communist hazard for the time of the chilly conflict and now the terrorist hazard. What we are adventure now's tiny in comparison to that of alternative circumstances. examine up on the living house front for the duration of any previous conflict - shop possibly Korea - you will discover liberties eroded and later re-favourite. certainly, there are people who could erode freedom in the call of alternative issues, which includes social equality, environmental concerns and others. At it relatively is middle, the sole activity of Congress is to erode freedoms in some type. call a regulation different constitutional amendments surpassed that would not fall into that class - you won't be in a position to. "in case you tell a lie super adequate and shop repeating it, people will at last come to have confidence it." i think of this could conceivable persist with to people that are claiming a huge erosion of non-public liberty.

Answer 7

I have liberty and security right now, why should I choose?

Answer 8

Liberty at all costs.

Or to borrow a quote --- you can take my civil liberties away when you pry them out of my cold dead hands.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.

Then they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.

Then they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.

Then they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.

Then they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.

Then they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.

Then they came for the 5th Amendment, ...... and I no longer had the right to remain silent.

Answer 9

all the rights and liberties in the world, mean NOTHING, if all you are is a pile of ashes burning in jet fuel on the 82nd floor.

Answer 10

give me security first