I still mostly agree with what I said the first time which was that you can't have freedom without security of that freedom.
The only thing that I would add to that since reading 1984 is that I think you have to have freedom to ensure security. You must have autonomy to know that you are secure. It does depend on what you want security from, if you're looking for security from everything that could threaten the way of life that we enjoy then you do have to make sure that your freedoms are secure because otherwise you won't know their gone and then you have no security from them being taken away. This sounds like a circular argument, but none the less I think you have to have both to ensure either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think you have an interesting point. it's almost like a chicken vs. the egg argument because it seems to work both ways. But I would say this only applies to people who think about freedom and security intellectually. There are people in this world, and a lot of them, who don't think about the future at all. They just look to their government to keep them safe without question. Others simply want their freedom. These types of people don't care whether their freedom is secure or whether their security is free. For some people it does matter, and those are the ounes who get up to change things, but the general masses want one, the other, or both without any strings attached.
~Audrey Musselman-Brown
I'm sticking to my guns that this whole prompt is a logical fallacy. If you give up your freedom to, say, speak as you wish, then you are not really secure because the right to differ in opinion from the ruling party does not exist for you. I think the two are intrinsic, at least regarding freedom of speech/thought.
That was Genna up above. Yup.
Post a Comment