University of Minnesota University of Mississippi Ole Miss Please note that attire for panels and debates is business casual and the attire for the banquet is business.
There are two common answers. The price of living in safety, they say, is allowing the government to violate our freedom if and when it deems necessary.
On the face of it, each side seems both right and wrong.
We value freedom-the ability to choose with whom we associate, where and when we travel, what religion we practice, what ideas we hold. But while freedom is important, so is security, which we need to be safe in order to live.
Nobody could enjoy either freedom under constant threat or security inside a cage. So which do we choose-freedom or security? We find ourselves confronted with an apparently hopeless dilemma. The way out of the apparent dilemma between freedom and security is to reject the underlying idea Freedom vs security the two are in conflict, and that a trade-off is necessary.
Mankind exists, said Hobbes, on a continuum between two states. On the other end is society under an authoritarian state, where the government exerts unchecked power over its subjects, preventing them from doing anything it deems disruptive to the public order.
Both sides of the debate acknowledge that each extreme poses a threat—and then each gravitates towards the one which makes it less nervous. Hence, the civil libertarians, more concerned by the threat of a powerful government than by the threat of terrorists, choose to accept the potential for increased terrorism as the lesser of two evils.
On the premise that increased security means less freedom, they reject attempts by the government to combat terrorism with tougher security measures like wiretapping and the Patriot Act.
The conservative sympathizers of Hobbes, on the other hand, argue that a more intrusive state is the answer to the threat of Islamic terrorism—and choose to accept the potential for increased government oppression as the lesser of two evils. On the premise that increased freedom means less security, they reject the need for government to be restrained by warrants, judicial oversight, and constitutional provisions like habeas corpus.
But both sides are wrong because Hobbes was wrong. In mischaracterizing freedom as the state of anarchy and security as life under the protective fist of government oppression, Hobbes creates a false alternative. Where one philosopher led us into this mess, another can lead us out.
It is only in the presence of physical coercion, i.
Is safety worth giving up your personal liberty? Nerf society of mindless government slaves Every day the federal government as well as state and local governments pass laws to make us a safer society. Now, more than a decade following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, balancing national security and personal freedom seems more challenging than ever. With events like the Boston Marathon Bombings, leaks of confidential governmental information, and shifting global hostilities occurring seemingly daily, questioning our security and freedom are . It is important to note our freedoms and rights that are being sacrificed in the attempts to strengthen security; considering almost 30 terrorist attacks in the United States or against Americans have occurred since 9/11 (InfoPlease).
In this broad sense, freedom and security are synonymous. To be free is to be secure. To be secure is to be free. Proper security measures taken at stadiums, for example, make possible the freedom to watch and enjoy sporting events.
In failing to recognize this harmony, we are led to believe that freedom entails allowing terrorists to plot against us with impunity, and that security entails allowing government to violate our rights at whim.
Instead, we should pursue both freedom and security—by allowing the government to vigorously combat terrorists in a manner consistent with freedom. Fundamentally, this entails striking at the source of terrorism by waging war against regimes like Iran that support terrorists and their ideology of Islamic totalitarianism.
Absent such action, security is virtually impossible-a police state, however intrusive, cannot secure a nation against foreign aggressors. Insofar as domestic measures like wiretapping are needed in addition to war, civil libertarians are wrong to oppose them solely out of antipathy for government power.
Rather, we should expand as much as possible the ability of the government to secure our freedom. Used properly, governmental powers like eavesdropping, airport security, profiling, and interrogation are not threats to freedom, but means to secure it.
Such powers can and must be implemented in a way consistent with freedom, i. Warrants, due process, judicial oversight and other constitutional limits must be required in any investigation or detainment of U.Harvard law professor Yochai Benkler says acts of conscience are integral to balancing security and freedom.
Freedom Vs. Security. By Fareed Zakaria On 7/7/02 at PM. Share. News. I will always remember July 4, , because a week earlier I became an American citizen. It was a different America one. The Federalist Society Student Symposium attracts hundreds of law students, lawyers, judges, and policy experts from across the country each year.
Sep 10, · Security and Freedom. By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF SEPT. 10, Continue reading the main story Share This Page. Continue reading the main story. When we look back at how our country has handled the. Freedom vs.
Security. The main reason why I resigned was my desire for freedom. I don’t believe people who tell me that I can have both!
A job offers financial security by having a steady paycheck. In mischaracterizing freedom as the state of anarchy and security as life under the protective fist of government oppression, Hobbes creates a false alternative. It is only by accepting this alternative that we’re led to believe freedom and security are conflicting goals.