Freedom or security?

MattVortex · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 10:05 am

It might seem a little strange, but these two things are inherent opposites. Thus the argument arises: do you opt for freedom, or security? Would you choose peace and give up your liberty? Or must freedom and liberty always stand strong?

This topic kind of erupted from the sandbox post - about the film, V for Vendetta. It is set in England in the future, in which a fascist government exists, and in this society, no-one has any freedom, but peace does exist. The main character, V, fights against the totalitarian regime to bring liberty to the people.

So, which is more important - a society in which people have freedom and liberty, or a society without these freedoms where peace and security exist?

Adbot · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 10:05 am

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 10:18 am

Personally, I don't think that freedom and security can really happen in the true sense of each word since both need each other in order to make a stable society. You need to have some freedom and some security. If you provided a situation, like terrorism or something, then it'd be a little more concrete on where people stand.

Sworded · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 10:25 am

tbh you need both but of the two i like freedom more.

MattVortex · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 10:40 am

Mushroom Queen wrote:

Personally, I don't think that freedom and security can really happen in the true sense of each word since both need each other in order to make a stable society. You need to have some freedom and some security. If you provided a situation, like terrorism or something, then it'd be a little more concrete on where people stand.

Take the example of terrorism, then, and the prevention thereof. Should you make huge surveillance systems, ban hydrogen peroxide and fireworks and all the rest of it, because people could use them for terrorism? Or do you allow more freedom?

Al3X · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 11:10 am

that would be a very difficult decision. I want to be able to make my own decisions, however i dont want terrorists running around.

im gonna have to say 50/50 (if thats a choice) it almost seems impossible to have one without the other.

Ryan · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 11:39 am

Freedom causes people to use weapons of mass destruction.
Security lets the government use it without us knowing.

Adbot · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 11:39 am

Shane · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 2:15 pm

I'd have to say security. I'm of the motto of I don't care if they know what I'm doing because I'm not doing anything illegal. Lets be clear here I don't mean we can throw the rule book out the window and start arresting people at random. I am perfectly fine with passive surveillance on the public as a whole.

In a nutshell when dealing with terrorism I'm all for security over freedom. And in other times a large amount of passive security is good with standard freedoms.

Pop Decay · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 2:21 pm

If you don't have freedom, you don't need security.

If everybody is controlled by society, they are forced to behave how the society wants them to behave. In the same case, the security would be the society. Where's the need for security if we aren't free to break the law?

* I'd rather have freedom over peace; peace is over rated. It can never be achieved correctly no matter what happens, even if all the terrorism in the world stops and everybody starts loving eachother. Where there's no freedom, there's no heart and passion, and there's no peace.

Rune Beast0 · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 3:11 pm

Shane wrote:

I'd have to say security. I'm of the motto of I don't care if they know what I'm doing because I'm not doing anything illegal. Lets be clear here I don't mean we can throw the rule book out the window and start arresting people at random. I am perfectly fine with passive surveillance on the public as a whole.

In a nutshell when dealing with terrorism I'm all for security over freedom. And in other times a large amount of passive security is good with standard freedoms.

I agree with Shane. Don't go crazy with security, but let it still take priority over freedom.

Evelyn · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 4:00 pm

I want freedom. And we should fight all our wars in a video game

Gontcha · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 6:33 pm

Freedom.
This may sound strange, but with security , you'll get a very boring country, and security, just like in V for Vendetta leads to totalitarism. If you don't understand, just wiki the V for Vendetta's plot or something.
I mean, if you need security, you already have fear. If you have a sense of fear, you stop thinking rational, how do you think W.Bush got re-elected? Some persons abuse that emotion, because fear drives people, fear means control.
Example? Germans were afraid of the Jews, because of they conspiracy, a theory made just to have control over people, the rest of the example is clear.

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 10:52 pm

Pop Decay wrote:

If you don't have freedom, you don't need security.

If everybody is controlled by society, they are forced to behave how the society wants them to behave. In the same case, the security would be the society. Where's the need for security if we aren't free to break the law?

* I'd rather have freedom over peace; peace is over rated. It can never be achieved correctly no matter what happens, even if all the terrorism in the world stops and everybody starts loving eachother. Where there's no freedom, there's no heart and passion, and there's no peace.

I've never really thought of things that way until you mentioned it. It seems like one is a catalyst for the other. If there's a society with draconian methods to ensure their idea of security (control over the will of their citizens) is enforced, then it will always breed discontent-- especially when large masses of people are affected. On the other hand, laissez-faire societies see a decline in the cultural glue that unites their people and revolution almost always happens as a result. By this, I mean countries that let freedom expand beyond basic commonly-accepted human freedoms (right to free speech, religion, etc) are most likely to experience backlash.

I guess you could call it the resilience of the human species that causes us to delve into change so frequently. Wars, coups, revolutions, and just pure thought and opinion can cause social change in varying degrees. When I see people who choose to be safe over having to experience change, I see it as a decision that's made on personal preference. Sure, I'd rather sit here and type this message in peace and quiet than to the sound of bombs dropping nearby, but that's only because my base instinct tells me that the most favourable choice is the one that will make me ultimately live longer.

Base instincts aside, a controlled society versus a loosely-controlled one is something that will never fit the liking of every single person affected by it. Therefore, neither are really the right answer since we always get sick of one or the other soon enough.

Dan · **Posted:** January 4th, 2008, 11:34 pm

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

Robbie · **Posted:** January 5th, 2008, 9:43 am

Freedom is significantly more important.

But I'm surprised all users of this forum aren't going with security. Here, we have little freedom to post whatever we want, but we all are very secure from potentially hurt feelings.

Evelyn · **Posted:** January 5th, 2008, 10:18 am

Security for a country should be "keep other people out"

Security for prison should be "keep people in"

Some countries like to use the latter.