There are many definitions for the term freedom, but one in particular is "the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like". As a citizen, you are part of a social contract with the government in your society. To fulfill your part of the contract, you agree and commit to pay taxes, vote and serve to protect your fellow people. In return, the government is expected to provide the people with education, city services and most importantly, protect them during war or danger.
The definition of security is "freedom from danger, risk, etc.". In order to feel secure, you must have protection from those dangers and risk and those who expect the government to uphold their end of the contract shouldn't be punished.
I disagree completely with the statement "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither". Those who feel the desire to give up their freedom for security deserve to recieve security. If the government has gone so far as to not provide security for those who deserve it, then those individuals must find any way they can to acquire it, even if it means giving up their freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree with your statement Laura. I mean, if a person is to go so far as to give up their freedom in turn for security then shouldn't they at least be able to acquire that security.
Security is not bad. And I'm not saying that Freedom is too. But it is a matter of the persons personal priority. And can we really dictate that?
ohh um.. thats my commetn above!
Angelica Felix-DeGuzman
I believe that all people should be provided security, but I disagree that people who give up their freedom deserve security. Sometimes people are so desperate for security that they are willing to give up their freedom, but they may find in the end that being secure without freedom is like imprisonment. You're secure but you don't have the freedom to speak your mind, the freedom to express you thoughts, or the freedom to exercise your beliefs. There needs to be a balance between feeling secure and being a member of a free society.
I would have to agree. If you given up your freedom to the government, it is definitely the government's job to keep you safe. Without a secured country, there is no freedom within the country because others would think it's a good time to invade.
That comment above was from Melissa Wong. :]
Post #2
2. To assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens.
I didn't agree with this before and now i disagree even more. In order for a country to be free, everyone in the country needs to be free also. However, being spied on is the opposite of being free. Like in 1984, because of the government spying on people, "you had to live- did live from habit that became instinct- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized" (orwell 3). There was nothing you could hide from the telescreens. What kind of way of living is that? How can the government claim that restricting all privacy for everyone helps the country stay free? Therefore, i strongly disagree with that statement.
-Laura West
I agree with Laura’s second statement. I don’t think that the government has the right to spy on its citizens to assure the countries freedom. If a country has freedom, then the citizens should be able to live private lives as they please. The country isn’t granting freedom by spying. It’s contradicting that the country is assuring freedom by spying on citizens.
Daylee Baker
Post a Comment