"Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither"
This cannot be considered a valid statement. With freedom comes the choice to give up that freedom, for security purposes or otherwise. You should control how your life plays out. And who judges what someone deserves? If there is such a judge, the person was not free to begin with.
It seems fairly simple up until you get to the question of government, especially our own. We live in a social contract in which we have relinquished certain freedoms to gain safety and security. You are free to do what you want, except when laws stop you. For example, we are not free to kill people. This is punishable by law.
The point is, this line does not apply to individuals. We have chosen to give up our freedom to kill in order to be secure against getting killed by another pursuing his right to kill. An individual can pick and choose what freedoms they maintain. But how does this apply to government, especially with laws like the patriot acts? We have not consented to be spied on, and yet our government has given itself permission to do so. We have given up more freedom, this time without our consent. These freedoms have been curtailed in the name of public safety, but how do you stop them from going too far? Where do you draw the line between laws that keep you safe and laws that expose every aspect of your life to the government? This is a question we will likely be forced to answer at some point in our lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with what you have said and I would like to add this:
Giving freedom for security does not necessarily end in your getting security. The less freedom you have, the more chances you have to break laws, and the less secure you are.
In a state of nature, giving up some freedom resulted in security. Did this act mean that those who had given freedom deserved neither that nor security?
Eric Lombardo
After reading 1984, I would like to amend this statement into one I believe:
Those who would trade another's freedom for their own security deserve neither.
This refers to the members of the Inner Party, who have suspended all rights of the citizens of Oceania so that they might live safely. Those who would corrupt the masses of humanity, destroy human emotion, and quite literally remove love from the world deserve neither the freedom to do this nor the security it provides them. This is a decision that must be made by the individual, not by an organization. The party originally sought power over their fellow human, but they have bastardized humanity almost beyond recognition.
-Sam Dunnington
Post a Comment