Liberty vs. Security: what would you rather have?

Question

Pick one, please......

Answer 1

Give me liberty, for 'tis the engine of human evolution.

Liberty shall not of itself flourish; but for the careful vigilance of determined souls.

I mean, the very idea that terrorists hate us for our freedom? what do we do? We start abandoning our freedoms! They hate us for our freedoms so we start assembling a totalitarian police state, with militarized police and the total surveillance, detention without trial, torture and all the rest of it. To me this is craven surrender to the terrorists. "you hate us for our freedoms? OK we quit, we give in, we abandon our freedoms" What the hell are we fighting this so-called war on terror for? If not to fight to defend our way of life and preserve our liberty?

"But," people say, "These restricted laws only apply to terrorists, so if you are not a terrorist you have nothing to fear."

The problem is the people who are restricting our freedoms are the same people who define what terrorism is. This means people can be detained under anti-terrorism laws for dropping litter

"Watch out! that child has dropped a candy wrapper of mass destruction!" In the UK, children have been stopped and questioned by police under the terrorism act, for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, dropping litter, and riding a bicycle at night without lights.

These laws are being abused and they do not appear to be used to prevent terrorism and protect the public, but to prevent dissent and protect the governing administrations. These laws are used to prevent people from protesting their government's actions in any location where the Government may actually notice them. Free speech zones in areas where nobody can be heard. A country that has to create zones where you may speak freely and prevent such speech outside those zones is NOT a free country. To suggest otherwise is like a doctor saying a body riddled with cancer is healthy because he can find one organ where there is no cancer. You have a cancer free zone in that body, so the body is healthy.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Answer 2

Liberty without any security would be a short-lived state, as you'd quickly be conquered from without.

Similarly, Security without liberty is not that secure - other have complete power over you, so you are at the mercy of thier whims.

That we have a government at all shows that the Founding Fathers understood that to have Liberty, you need to have security.

Liberty is the first priority, though.

Answer 3

For me, the choice is simple---LIBERTY ALL THE WAY! Security is a total ILLUSION under King JORGE (misspelling deliberate), as TAKING AWAY OUR LIBERTIES IN THE NAME OF "SECURITY" is their game. Their idea of "security" is FOR THEMSELVES, because they are actually AFRAID of the American people and what the public will do once they truly have their eyes opened to all the ATROCITIES committed by King "W" and the rest! We will have true freedom when the Big Changes come, which should be right after the Big Money Collapse happens, any day now.

Answer 4

Is it too much to ask for a lot of both? Bastiat postulated, the job of government is to stop bullies. I would ask government to do that. Would I grant liberty to murderers or thieves? Should I grant to non citizens the right to enter my country to harm me? I think if you look at it that way, you have to come up with an answer that encompasses both. An answer that strikes a fair balance between liberty and security.

Answer 5

They that can give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither Liberty nor security.

Answer 6

no longer something new. It replaced into the comparable 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 possibility for the time of the chilly conflict and now the terrorist possibility. What we are journey now's tiny in comparison to that of different circumstances. examine up on the abode front throughout the time of any previous conflict - keep possibly Korea - you will locate liberties eroded and later re-regularly occurring. certainly, there are people who could erode freedom interior the call of different issues, inclusive of social equality, environmental concerns and others. At it incredibly is middle, the only activity of Congress is to erode freedoms in some variety. call a regulation different constitutional amendments exceeded that would not fall into that classification - you may no longer. "in case you tell a lie sufficiently vast and keep repeating it, human beings will finally come to believe it." i think of this could a probability word to those that are claiming a enormous erosion of private liberty.

Answer 7

I would much rather have liberty because then I would have the freedom to provide for my own security. Like the right to keep and bare arms. I love guns!

Answer 8

Liberty without a doubt.

Answer 9

Liberty. I don't trust a christian leader to provide security for me. You know, since they all want to die and live in the kingdom of heaven anyway. Plus, with liberty I can provide my own security.

Answer 10

Without security any liberty you have will be very short-lived.