Freedom vs. Security

[LinuxNerd]

I'm sure many of us have heard of Ben Franklin's immortal quote: "A man who sacrifices a little freedom for temporary security deserves neither and is denied both".
Well, I was debating this with an aquantince the other week, and we came to an agreement: where does it start and where does it end. The police force is one such example. The police don't afford me the freedom to get away with unsavoury behaviour (fair engough), but they prevent me from being a victim of aforementioned behaviour. Where is the starting point for this? Should we all be allowed to do what we want, when we want and be victims of the consequences or should we succumb to some invasions of our privacy (internet monitoring, wiretapping, CCTV, etc) in order to feel safe?

 

[JoeVice]

well..you're free to do what you want no matter what, your privacy is always being infringed on. you have no choice but to succumb to them. but, is it really a big deal. I'm shipping 100 pounds of cocaine and 50 assult rifles to france tommorrow.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I'd say if it is used to suppress resistance then the infringement on privacy would then prevent change, and in the event of a cruel dictator or any government that used extreme fascism, then they have the ability to control the whole society and prevent any sense of happiness that freedom gives.

 

[LinuxNerd]

I equate privacy with freedom. If I knew someone was watching what I said / did, I would be very careful to tip toe around even jokingly mentioning some kind of terrorist plot, thus limiting my freedom.

 

[Blowtus]

I equate privacy with a lack of freedom - it limits my ability to fully understand the world around me, because there are restrictions in place for the sake of 'privacy'.

Talk of freedom is one of the most rubbishy debates around, it doesn't exist on it's own it can only be relational - freedom from *something*. No, the 'something' is not always effectively implied.

If we have more freedom from regulation then we have less freedom from random acts of violence... etc.

One of the main concepts of the 'state' imho is that of a reduction of 'active freedom' (the ability to do things) for an increase in 'passive freedom'. (the ability to not have things done to you) There is a contradiction of sorts in that more 'passive freedom' has the effect of allowing 'active actions' because there is less fear of negative consequences for some actions.

Basically I think it's all wordy bullshit... it'd be simpler if we just talked about most bestest instead of most free-est

Better to speak of power than freedom I think.

 

[LinuxNerd]

True, I like that post blowtus

 

[TheAnonymous]

Freedom is not something objective. It's different for each person, and I don't believe that complete freedom is most people's desire.
I think it is necessary to compromise some freedom for the sake of security. If we wouldn't then we wouldn't have a functional society and it would all collapse and become anarchy.
Just because we sacrifice some of our freedom doesn't mean we aren't free. We still have the right to choose our path in life and our actions, we just have some limitations.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Freedom as I'm sure it actually applies and has for many years is freedom from slavery or of being a serf type class owing their total existence to a lord who owns you and the land you work on.

 

[Pyro_Fish]

pick one people
freedom or security
seems pretty obvious that you really can't have both

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

True dat. It seems to me the more of one you have, the more you will gradually see the other erode. Obviously given the political landscape at the moment this debate is quite important. (Especially given the current discussion regarding the role of the executive).
There is (was) an intricate balance, but the potential always exists for some special circumstance in which the people become fearful, and more security is needed. And, of course, whoever dispenses the security holds the power.

(Shubowwww!)

 

[Pyro_Fish]

i wonder if the people outside of USA really understand how big of an issue this is here in the states
here we feel un-safe and we feel our privacy being voilated both at the same time

 

[TheAnonymous]

pick one people
freedom or security
seems pretty obvious that you really can't have both

Of course you can. Life isn't black or white, but rather a shade of gray. You can't have complete security or complete freedom while still having the other, true. But you can definately have a lot of freedom and a lot of security at the same time.

You say that in the US you feel unsecure, well the major reason many people feel so unsecure (here too) is the media. It doesn't matter how much things get better, the media will always increase the coverage on the bad things, and make you feel like everything is going to hell even if everything can be great. I'm not saying things are necessarily great, but they're definately not as bad as they make you think...

 

[fah-q]

i wonder if the people outside of USA really understand how big of an issue this is here in the states
here we feel un-safe and we feel our privacy being voilated both at the same time

I am not so sure that the people inside the US really understand either. We believe we are unsafe and without privacy because we have been told to believe that. Relatively speaking, neither is true.

 

[TheAnonymous]

Yeah, that'was my point too.
I'm not sure exactly how things are in the US but from what I know, in this aspect it is more or less like here. All around being told that everything is horrible and people buying into that, when things are actually better than ever.

 

[C.J.W.Wyatt]

I am not so sure that the people inside the US really understand either. We believe we are unsafe and without privacy because we have been told to believe that. Relatively speaking, neither is true.

Definitely. It happens. But personally I feel safe and free. I'm sure under different circumstances I might change my mind, but at this point in my life, and many people in theirs, I feel safe to go where I want and do what I want.

It also just so happens I don't do stupid shit, so that might be a factor too.

 

[waif]

Talk of freedom is one of the most rubbishy debates around, it doesn't exist on it's own it can only be relational - freedom from *something*. No, the 'something' is not always effectively implied.

Thank you.

One of the main concepts of the 'state' imho is that of a reduction of 'active freedom' (the ability to do things) for an increase in 'passive freedom'. (the ability to not have things done to you) There is a contradiction of sorts in that more 'passive freedom' has the effect of allowing 'active actions' because there is less fear of negative consequences for some actions.

I hadn't thought about that, but that's a good point.

pick one people
freedom or security
seems pretty obvious that you really can't have both

You can if people don't want to kill you. In the real world, though, I don't think you can have either completely. But I don't think it's a good idea to give people complete freedom to do whatever they want (I think we can agree on this point), and complete security would take the spice out of life (sorta).

It's definitely possible to find a balance, however, that works for everyone.

True dat. It seems to me the more of one you have, the more you will gradually see the other erode. Obviously given the political landscape at the moment this debate is quite important. (Especially given the current discussion regarding the role of the executive).

I think more security definitely causes less freedom of all sorts. But not all freedom reduces security - limiting freedom of speech might be a consequence of increased security, but freedom of speech is not likely to decrease security. On the other hand, the freedom to carry automatic weapons at all times definitely decreases security.

And, of course, whoever dispenses the security holds the power.

...and thus are tyrants made.

(Shubowwww!)