2007-04-08 05:42:18 · 21 answers · asked by Lancaid 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A very wise man once said "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither", that wise man being Ben Franklin. Of course, with all due respect to Mr. Franklin, I believe that we live in a world where it possible to compromise. For example, someone's right to throw their fists must be limited by the proximity of another's chin. Is that necessarily sacrificing liberty? Not at all, in fact, liberty is something that must be protected by the government so anarchy is something that would never work. Anarchy would essentially be liberty to those who are strongest and most able and by the very definition of liberty, even the weaker deserve it. I think that a good democracy provides as much liberty as it possibly can while still granting the most basic securities to its people, such as life and property and the right to legally pursue a redress from the government. So, the answer to this question is both are necessary in government.
2007-04-08 05:52:20 · answer #1 · answered by Mel 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Liberty
2007-04-08 05:44:46 · answer #2 · answered by Ands 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Liberty. The citizens of China have safety.
2007-04-08 05:50:06 · answer #3 · answered by Peter Pumpkin Eater 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I prefer liberty to safety. I don't need a label on a bottle of bleach telling me that it would hurt me. I don't need a label on a cup of coffee telling me that it is hot. I will gladly give up some safety for more liberty, but I will rarely be willing to give up liberty for greater safety.
2007-04-08 06:03:03 · answer #4 · answered by Erin Gamer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
2007-04-08 05:46:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Both! Historically durring times of war some civil liberties are lost to protect the nation. Once the threat is over those liberties are reinstated.
2007-04-08 06:07:11 · answer #6 · answered by Homeless in Phoenix 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberty first insures safety. But safety first never insures liberty.
2007-04-08 05:50:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, you can't have safety without liberty, or liberty without safety. They go hand in hand.
What I can't stand is evil doers and law breakers hiding under the veil of liberty. When a police officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge fail to follow one step in a thousand step process, criminals are allowed to be freed because of a "technicality." They get their FREEDOM, and the rest of us lose our SAFETY.
Our greatest enemy might not be Islamic terrorists. It very well could be the ACLU.
2007-04-08 05:51:44 · answer #8 · answered by jpsmith479 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberty. Without liberty you have no safety.
2007-04-08 05:48:48 · answer #9 · answered by bestbet77 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Better for who? "Safety" is better for the powerful, liberty is better for everyone else because it limits the restrictions the powerful can bring on the average citizen.
2007-04-08 05:48:10 · answer #10 · answered by Mordent 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋