Thread: Liberty or security

Benjamin Franklin is credited as once saying "those who would sacrifice liberty for a little safety will inevitably lose both and deserve neither."
The question in this thread speaks to whether you would be free or safe. This is not an attempt to solicit mock heroic declamations of personal freedom. Neither is it an attempt to minimize government's necessary involvement in the creation of an orderly society, through the use of law enforcement to reduce crime. What this thread is, is an attempt to have a grown up conversation about freedom, risk, security, and safety. It's a serious attempt to address the question of the trade-off a society incurs as it moves towards perceived safety.

To start this discussion I will first provide my bona-fides (which you can choose to consider or ignore). In the matter of national security I have about twenty-five years experience. I have a current TS-SCI. I was a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security. I have held a civilian position, equivalent to a lieutenant colonel of Marines, during this period. I have done risk assessments, threat analysis, and have designed countermeasures to reduce or eliminate specific threats.

I would posit to you two things: Freedom is for adults. It requires that each individual be responsible, to some extent, for his own safety and security. This is something the government cannot provide (absolutely) to you. Further to the point, it has no duty to do so., for any specific person.

The second thing I would posit to you is that the way to fight terrorism is not to be terrified. It is necessary to accept some level of risk, because that's the nature of life. Everything we do is based in some assessment of risk. Cross the street or do not cross. Walk through a particular neighborhood or avoid it. Drive or take public transportation. We consider risk in most things we do, yet many accept that the level of "safety" provided by the government (and it's false, but more on that later) is necessary without really understanding how remote the risk of an attack (affecting them) really is. More to the point they fail to understand that many of the steps the government takes really DON'T significantly alter the level of risk.

So my question is this: Freedom or safety? Why?

Freedom. As you so eloquently pointed out, the illusion of safety provided by the government is not worth it's price in individual liberty and responsibility.

Originally Posted by Cicero

We consider risk in most things we do, yet many accept that the level of "safety" provided by the government (and it's false, but more on that later) is necessary without really understanding how remote the risk of an attack (affecting them) really is. More to the point they fail to understand that many of the steps the government takes really DON'T significantly alter the level of risk.

So my question is this: Freedom or safety? Why?

I would go even further and say that MOST of the steps gov takes fails to lower the risk. Law is primarily in place so we have civil recourse for wrongdoing, not to prevent it. That would require solving for human nature and randomness, which is not going to happen. I'd rather be free and not under the gaze of official scrutiny.

I voted "Other" because I think they are both equally necessary in a free society.

Give me liberty and I can secure my freedom. I vote other for that reason.

Originally Posted by Devil505

I voted "Other" because I think they are both equally necessary in a free society.

Let's start here, then as the point of discussion. If we accept that the government can only provide security (on a limited basis) and not safety would you still be willing to trade your liberty? Arguing, as a tautology, that it's simply impossible for the government to protect you from every possible, conceivable threat that could be executed by terrorists, whether lone wolf (single man) or cooperatively with others, where is your line of demarcation? Where is this line of demarcation? The point of trade-off at which government encroachment on liberty becomes intolerable to you?

If we accept that the only way that the government can make you more secure is by reducing controllable variables, and thus liberty, where is the bright line that the government should not cross? Why?

Originally Posted by Hairball

Since "freedom" and "safety" are not mutually exclusive terms, your question is a textbook example of a false dilemma.

Really? Perhaps you can provide us all with an example, either apocryphal or by citation, which supports your claim. Show us all how much you know.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Let's start here, then as the point of discussion. If we accept that the government can only provide security (on a limited basis) and not safety.....

I'm gonna stop you right there;
The government can & has provided both.
100% of either is an unattainable goal.

Originally Posted by Cicero

If we accept that the only way that the government can make you more secure is by reducing controllable variables, and thus liberty, where is the bright line that the government should not cross? Why?

That will always be the dilemma & is unanswerable in the abstract.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Let's start here, then as the point of discussion. If we accept that the government can only provide security (on a limited basis) and not safety would you still be willing to trade your liberty? Arguing, as a tautology, that it's simply impossible for the government to protect you from every possible, conceivable threat that could be executed by terrorists, whether lone wolf (single man) or cooperatively with others, where is your line of demarcation? Where is this line of demarcation? The point of trade-off at which government encroachment on liberty becomes intolerable to you?

If we accept that the only way that the government can make you more secure is by reducing controllable variables, and thus liberty, where is the bright line that the government should not cross? Why?

I don't know if this still holds true for some but for me anything the government does to infringe upon my god given liberties is crossing the line.