Is Freedom More Important Than Security?

[MathewSmith]

Safety is needed more than freedom Without safety there is no freedom. Freedom comes when people know they are safe. If they feel unsafe, they will not feel free. Would you go out into the world not knowing that at anytime you could be attacked or killed? Safety could detect these things and help us to defeat the fear we have as humans in this contemporary society!

 

[emilynghiem]

Safety is needed more than freedom Without safety there is no freedom. Freedom comes when people know they are safe. If they feel unsafe, they will not feel free. Would you go out into the world not knowing that at anytime you could be attacked or killed? Safety could detect these things and help us to defeat the fear we have as humans in this contemporary society!

I don't know if you are responding to the saying that people are willing to give up their freedom for security.

I have used the terms Freedom and Peace to describe this balance.
We want our free will, but not to abuse this to breach or disturb the peace.
We want peace, law and order, but not to impose this to the point of losing liberty or free will/choice
without due process to prove we have committed a crime/abuse and deserve to be restricted.
The issue being collective order, that sometimes the laws for the collective mean giving up some freedoms as individuals, but we don't want to take this too far and restrict EVERYONE because of a few abusers.

So the balance between freedom and peace is justice.
Neither abusing freedom to disrupt the peace, nor imposing peace at the expense of freedom.

The best way I know to ensure both freedom and peace/security
is to make sure people feel their interests and consent are represented and included
in the democratic process, especially if going through reps. As long as people feel
they have a say and a choice in the matter, then if laws restrict freedom, at least
people agreed. The problem is when things are forced on people without feeling represented, then that whole dynamic of political oppression or bullying becomes a problem in itself to be resolved, not just the content of the law. The process must be fair in granting people equal representation and protection of the laws; if so, people can agree on balancing the need for both freedom and peace (without feeling threatened as if outside authority is imposing restrictions on them for political motives outside the purpose and effectiveness of the law in question).

=========
Note:
If you look at the First Amendment, that guarantees free speech, free press and free exercise
of religion which I interpret openly to mean free will to follow one's beliefs, the CHECK on these
freedoms is also included as "the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble and to petition"
for a redress of grievances. I interpret this generally as the right of people to assemble peacefully
and securely "in society" not just at protests or organized assemblies, and to petition as in
address and resolve grievances "in general' and not just formally through govt processes.

That's where I see natural laws influencing our Constitutional laws, where the universal
principles of freedom, peace, and justice through due process are guaranteed in spirit.
The wording and terms are not exact, as the Literal Legalistic meaning is different than what I read into them,
but interpreted more generally, the concepts are still there. There are deeper concepts behind them
than what was consciously and historically intended.