![]() ![]() ![]() In this broad sense, freedom and security are synonymous. insecurity, that a man loses his freedom. It is only in the presence of physical coercion, i.e. #Alternative to act by sage free#Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism argue that “Freedom has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion.” A man is free to act so long he is left unrestrained and unthreatened by others. Where one philosopher led us into this mess, another can lead us out. It is only by accepting this alternative that we’re led to believe freedom and security are conflicting goals. In mischaracterizing freedom as the state of anarchy and security as life under the protective fist of government oppression, Hobbes creates a false alternative. 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.īut both sides are wrong because Hobbes was wrong. 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 security means less freedom, they reject attempts by the government to combat terrorism with tougher security measures like wiretapping and the Patriot Act. 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. Both sides of the debate acknowledge that each extreme poses a threat–and then each gravitates towards the one which makes it less nervous. Though most reject Hobbes’ preferred solution of an all-powerful government, they nevertheless accept his proposed continuum, opting instead to strike a “balance” between the two extremes. This is Hobbes’ picture of complete security. 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. This is Hobbes’ picture of complete freedom. On one end is the pre-government state of nature, where people live in a “war of all against all,” each attempting to victimize others while defending himself against their predations. Mankind exists, said Hobbes, on a continuum between two states. The way out of the apparent dilemma between freedom and security is to reject the underlying idea that the two are in conflict, and that a trade-off is necessary.Ĭonsider the roots of this debate, which go back much further than 9/11 to 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes. So which do we choose-freedom or security? We find ourselves confronted with an apparently hopeless dilemma.īut it’s a trick question. Nobody could enjoy either freedom under constant threat or security inside a cage. But while freedom is important, so is security, which we need to be safe in order to live. We value freedom-the ability to choose with whom we associate, where and when we travel, what religion we practice, what ideas we hold. On the face of it, each side seems both right and wrong. The price of living in safety, they say, is allowing the government to violate our freedom if and when it deems necessary. On the other side are the conservatives who argue that securing the nation requires sacrificing some of our rights. This side often quotes Benjamin Franklin’s warning that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither.” On one side are the civil libertarians who argue that the government’s security enhancements curtail individual freedom. What’s more important: freedom or security? Since 9/11, we’ve heard this question in debates over issues ranging from the PATRIOT Act to wiretapping to interrogation techniques.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |