National Security VS Personal Liberties

[15357]

Yeah, I have a debate thing to do in 7 hours time, so I decided to post this here to get some ideas from you awesome people.


I'm in favor of National Security, because without security and the right authority to preserve it, there can be no liberty or freedom.

As an example:

YAY! We made sure that our liberties are preserved and overthrew the evil oppressive politicians from the goverment! We also got rid of their henchmen, the military! Now they can't do anything without everyones consent! Democracy forever!


2 days later......


NOES! The communists had spies in our goverment! They knew that our military power was weakened and invaded! Also, terrorist groups have launched attacks in our capital, and it could have been easily avoided had we had a goverment that didn't overlook the importance of national security! The goverment is too inefficient to do anything! Even the police can't keep order, or even arrest criminals! NOOOO!


Ok, perhaps a weak argument, but I'm sticking to it.

 

[SAJ]

So what - exactly - makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

 

[15357]

Nothing. No freedom without security.


But uh... the debate thing has to have the 2 fighting. so does a lot of other people. :/

 

[Glirk Dient]

I chose national security...as you need some. However, there is a fine line between too much national security and too little and all of that depends on current events.

 

[Raeven0]

Moderation is the key.

No sane person likes an oppressive government. No sane person likes an anarchy. Gotta strike a balance.

I chose Personal Liberty, because I see it as the more important of the two.

 

[99.vikram]

I think personal liberty will evntually result in national security. If all people have an equal opportunity to succeed in life, threats like terrorism disappear.

 

[Jintor]

Personal Liberties. Maybe you're safe... from outsiders... but are you safe from your own government?

 

[15357]

I think personal liberty will evntually result in national security. If all people have an equal opportunity to succeed in life, threats like terrorism disappear.

But that is impossible.

 

[Steve]

Personal Liberty every time.

 

[15357]

Personal Liberties. Maybe you're safe... from outsiders... but are you safe from your own government?

Thats like saying "are you safe from your own loving parents?"

Personal Liberty every time.

Reason? Please include.

 

[Raeven0]

Thats like saying "are you safe from your own loving parents?"

I rue the day that government is likened to loving parents and nobody sees a problem with it. Government is more like an evil drunken stepfather who forces you out of the house to play with the neighbourhood bullies so that he can shoot up heroin with his bar buddies.

 

[15357]

I rue the day that government is likened to loving parents and nobody sees a problem with it. Government is more like an evil drunken stepfather who forces you out of the house to play with the neighbourhood bullies so that he can shoot up heroin with his bar buddies.

Uh.... wouldn't that be an Utopian (Or Dystopian, whatever you prefer) state? Perfect and super-efficient goverment that helps every citizen, everyone's happy-happy, nobody sees a problem with it because they're all happy, except a few evil revolutionary groups.....

So, an evil drunken stepfather puts criminals in jail, gives aids (NOT AIDS) to the children (citizens) when they become poor or have problems, protect you from external and internal threats, maintain order and security?

 

[Neo_Kuja]

So, an evil drunken stepfather puts criminals in jail, gives aid (NOT AIDS) to the children (citizens) when they become poor or have problems, protect you from external and internal threats, maintain order and security?

The day in which every government becomes perfect will be the day that humankind will have evolved to the point where petty squabbles are the thing of the past, and there will be no NEED to have a government. In other words, it will be a extremely long time, or, more likely - never.

As for giving up personal liberties for national security ? Giving up some liberties is a reasonable request it a time of all-out war, where you give the government emergency powers to protect itself against the enemy. But where do you draw the line ?

Take the PATRIOT ACT in the U.S, for instance. Every citizen in the country has had their right to privacy violated by the act itself, while information on your personal activities are being spirited away by the goverment to be used in their national information database or some-such. While I am personally astounded that Americans haven't gotten up in arms about the bill at all, you really have to wonder what happens to that information, hmm ? Does it all go into anti-terrorist operations, or is some of it leaked to other goverment departments and oops, your information is now owned by a private company !

I will guarantee you this : No future U.S government will turn away the current powers given to them by the Patriot Act.

The war against "terror" is a war against a noun, and you cannot win a war against terror just like you can't win a war against drugs, evil, hope, good and so on. Ravenging the Middle East will not win the war against terror, terrorism doesn't soley come from Muslims ! Attacking the middle east will cause more world tension and will probably cause more terrorist attacks against the United States of America rather than reducing them, and I am sure as hell that stripping away the rights of ordinary americans does squat in the war against terror itself.

So, reduce personal liberties to increase national security, or vice versa ? Personally, personal security is far more precious and needs to be protected from government manipulation far more than it currently is.

 

[Mr Stabby]

either in extreme is a bad thing, In theory if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide, but of course it depends on what the government classifies as a threat.

since we are being theoretical I chose national security

 

[kirovman]

Well since only having either one or the other would be hell, I would prefer to strike a natural balance between the two.

 

[Kangy]

Numbers, you are a parody of many, many things.

 

[bliink]

"He who chooses security over liberty deserves neither." (Benjamin Franklin, iirc)

 

[DreamThrall]

"He who chooses security over liberty deserves neither." (Benjamin Franklin, iirc)

Indeed. And the author is correct.

 

[Jintor]

Thats like saying "are you safe from your own loving parents?"

Well, are you?

 

[Ennui]

"He who chooses security over liberty deserves neither." (Benjamin Franklin, iirc)

Damn, I was coming in here to quote that.

 

[15357]

"He who chooses security over liberty deserves neither." (Benjamin Franklin, iirc)

Sure, you may not deserve them, but you still get security and safety anyway



Anyway, won debate (somehow) by 5 points avg. I'm kinda stunned. This shows that if you yell "WE MUST PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES AND OUR LIVES BY SECURITY! THE EVIL COMMIES ARE COMING!", you can win any debate.

 

[15357]

The day in which every government becomes perfect will be the day that humankind will have evolved to the point where petty squabbles are the thing of the past, and there will be no NEED to have a government. In other words, it will be a extremely long time, or, more likely - never.

Agreed. There will always be a need for goverment.

As for giving up personal liberties for national security ? Giving up some liberties is a reasonable request it a time of all-out war, where you give the government emergency powers to protect itself against the enemy. But where do you draw the line ?

Take the PATRIOT ACT in the U.S, for instance. Every citizen in the country has had their right to privacy violated by the act itself, while information on your personal activities are being spirited away by the goverment to be used in their national information database or some-such. While I am personally astounded that Americans haven't gotten up in arms about the bill at all, you really have to wonder what happens to that information, hmm ? Does it all go into anti-terrorist operations, or is some of it leaked to other goverment departments and oops, your information is now owned by a private company !

You, know, its only surveilance. When your in public areas, PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU! Also, the goverment stores your information secretly. And already a national database on citizens exist! (Think car lisences, gun liscenses, work permits, ect.)

I will guarantee you this : No future U.S government will turn away the current powers given to them by the Patriot Act.

Good.

The war against "terror" is a war against a noun, and you cannot win a war against terror just like you can't win a war against drugs, evil, hope, good and so on. Ravenging the Middle East will not win the war against terror, terrorism doesn't soley come from Muslims ! Attacking the middle east will cause more world tension and will probably cause more terrorist attacks against the United States of America rather than reducing them, and I am sure as hell that stripping away the rights of ordinary americans does squat in the war against terror itself.

Random searches may be fruitless, but statistically, its gonna help.
Also, statstically, muslims are most of the terrorist forces in the world. (I don't have anything against them, btw)

So, reduce personal liberties to increase national security, or vice versa ? Personally, personal security is far more precious and needs to be protected from government manipulation far more than it currently is.

Personal Security? Uh, thats what National Security gives....

Reply in qoute.

In all honesty, national security leads to your survival, not to mention the best interests of the nation. You need to live first, before you get a chance to enjoy your freedoms.

 

[Ludah]

You need to live first, before you get a chance to enjoy your freedoms.

And an easy response to that is that you can't enjoy your freedoms when living under a police state.

Frankly, I do not believe the whole world is out to get me. I do not believe there are many security issues that would require the sacrifice of my liberties if handled correctly. In the situations where my liberties are sacrificed, however, I believe the government is either incompetent, taking a quick "fix-it" route, or has other accompanying aims in mind.

And if I do die because of some supposed excess of freedom, so be it. I'll be dead. I find that idea more comforting than living a full, albeit constricted and paranoid life.

(I am answering this question with the assumption that we are being forced between two extremes. In reality, it's a shite poll because any sane society would strike a balance in the middle.)

 

[gick]

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees etc etc etc.

 

[bliink]

Reply in qoute.

In all honesty, national security leads to your survival, not to mention the best interests of the nation. You need to live first, before you get a chance to enjoy your freedoms.

You could say the same in reverse and it would still be true, however.

You need to be able to survive to develop "national security"
The best interests of the nation are primarily concerned with bettering the survival of its constituants, security is a means, not an end.

You need to enjoy your freedoms if you are to have a chance at living.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It's not an either or question to be honest, and increasing one does not have to mean a decrease in the other.

Also personal liberty can increase security. EG: Second ammendment.

In the words of Full Metal Jacket- "They'd rather be alive than free. Poor dumb bastards."

That's true. I'd die before someone took my freedoms.

 

[Lemonking]

It's not an either or question to be honest, and increasing one does not have to mean a decrease in the other.

Also personal liberty can increase security. EG: Second ammendment.

In the words of Full Metal Jacket- "They'd rather be alive than free. Poor dumb bastards."

That's true. I'd die before someone took my freedoms.

QFT

 

[Element Alpha]

Yeah, I have a debate thing to do in 7 hours time, so I decided to post this here to get some ideas from you awesome people.


I'm in favor of National Security, because without security and the right authority to preserve it, there can be no liberty or freedom.

As an example:

YAY! We made sure that our liberties are preserved and overthrew the evil oppressive politicians from the goverment! We also got rid of their henchmen, the military! Now they can't do anything without everyones consent! Democracy forever!


2 days later......


NOES! The communists had spies in our goverment! They knew that our military power was weakened and invaded! Also, terrorist groups have launched attacks in our capital, and it could have been easily avoided had we had a goverment that didn't overlook the importance of national security! The goverment is too inefficient to do anything! Even the police can't keep order, or even arrest criminals! NOOOO!


Ok, perhaps a weak argument, but I'm sticking to it.

Yeah numbers, you do that! Stick to your weak argument.

Hey guys. I expected someone to realize he shot his own foot with his story.

Read it again maybe...

He explains that the permanent fear of an enemy is required to maintain a high level of national security. FEAR THE BOOGEYMEN!!

Lol some people really make me laugh!

 

[Sulkdodds]

If it becomes an either/or then liberty trumps security every time.

Why? Compromise of liberties shouldn't be required for an increase in security - and when it is, that's generally a situation in which security against the public themselves is the aim and not security against any external aggressor.

 

[Laivasse]

Yeah, balance and all that, but liberty being more important. It's not a short-sighted selfish view either, if we're talking about the good of the human race as a whole and in the long-term. Look at the nature of innovation and invention; those cultures who give their citizens a bit more of a free leash in creative and scientific freedoms are more likely to produce stuff which benefits mankind.

Also,@the notion of giving your caring sharing government the benefit of the doubt - unfortunately, human nature being as it is, it is far more likely that a government will limit freedoms in the interests of cementing their own power base, rather than out of flowery goodness and love for their common man.

 

[CptStern]

It's not an either or question to be honest, and increasing one does not have to mean a decrease in the other.

Also personal liberty can increase security. EG: Second ammendment.

In the words of Full Metal Jacket- "They'd rather be alive than free. Poor dumb bastards."

That's true. I'd die before someone took my freedoms.

they're eroding one by one


but for the most part people are only concerned about eroding rights when it directly affects them

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

 

[Lemonking]

as far as I know,only anti-whiner laws have been passed,its not like we cant go out of our house anymore.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Yeah, the raid on congress is far scarier than most people think. Whatever he's done, Congressman Jefferson should not be treated like a common criminal and yet that is how the ever-expanding and increasingly powerful executive branch of the government is behaving. Its getting worse down here....

Liberty over security. I'll take care of myself thanks.

 

[Maxi]

National security can be had with personal liberties.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Not least because you dramatically decrease the chance of anybody in your country wanting to harm the government or the populace.

 

[Lemonking]

National security can be had with personal liberties.

very true.

 

[UltraProAnti]

NOES! The communists had spies in our goverment! They knew that our military power was weakened and invaded! Also, terrorist groups have launched attacks in our capital, and it could have been easily avoided had we had a goverment that didn't overlook the importance of national security! The goverment is too inefficient to do anything! Even the police can't keep order, or even arrest criminals! NOOOO!

here's two suggestions:

* ask: is the government really as concerned with national security as it claims? taking away civil liberties doesn't automatically mean increasing security (it's just made out that way). for example: various foreign policy thinktanks predicted that attacking iraq would *increase* not decrease the threat of terrorism, and this has come to pass. so therefore the government took a course of action it must have known would *decrease* security. is national security really the agenda, or is it just a convenient cover for another agenda?

* secondly, think of national security more broadly than just human threats. for instance, the budget for maintaining the levees in new orleans was cut several years running, the result being a load of people being killed by katrina. likewise, global warming is a threat to national security due to the threat of flooding and freak weather. these are all national security threats, when security is considered in its broadest sense

 

[Element Alpha]

Well said, UltraProAnti.

 

[15357]

I think my argument can be summed up by this message on the highway:

Guaranteed national security will eventualy lead to a greater freedom. Report Spies. Call 111.

 

[Sulkdodds]

A single, silly statement backed up by absolutely nothing.

Best. Argument. Ever.