Does trading essential liberty for temporary safety extend to other areas?

[Polish3d]

If one thinks it over a bit, I think an argument could be made that we trade liberty for safety in areas not commonly framed that way.

How?

Well, when we debate the balance between security and civil liberties, such as with the PATRIOT ACT, the fear is that the added powers that were initially granted for a specific purpose will be abused by the government.

But the reasoning behind allowing this enlargement of government authority is to protect citizens from harm.


I believe the same situation may exist with other non-classical areas in which we allow (massive (federal) ) control over areas of our lives for the promise of greater safety...


I think the idea is worth kicking around a bit; that when we accept greater government regulation, social safety nets, and other large govt. programs that require more tax money, laws and other types of government involvement in our lives, are we not engaging in this same balancing act of liberty/autonomy for safety/security?

And should issues of this type not be treated with the same levels of scrutiny and skepticism that are given to the more classical liberty vs. security situations?

 

[CycloWizard]

All powers granted to the government are in the form of a tradeoff. We give them more tax dollars, they provide for our retirement via social security. We pay property taxes and they provide schools. If we want better schools, we can vote for higher property taxes (all in theory, of course). What everyone needs to realize is that there is a delicate balance that must be struck. Where this balance should be struck is, of course, a matter of opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sun and wind blow
Honeymoon of st.last alone
Feeling far above par
Oh how lucky we are
While I give to you and you give to me
True love true love
So on and on it will always be
True love true love
For you and I have a guardian angel
On high with nothing to do
But to give to you and to give to me
Love forever true
I give to you and you give me to me
True love true love
So on and on it will always be true love true love
For and I have a guardian angel
on high with nothing to do
but to give to you and to give to me
Love forever true

 

[Fern]

I think an argument could be made that we trade liberty for safety in areas not commonly framed that way.

How?

Seat belt laws
helmet laws
building inspection/codes that apply to private homes (especially when you build it yourself, which many peeps do where I live)

There are many examples, its done all the time IMHO. And yeah, I've noticed that most peeps only bring up the "liberty vs safety" trade-off in a selective manner.

Fern

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Frackal
If one thinks it over a bit, I think an argument could be made that we trade liberty for safety in areas not commonly framed that way.

How?

Well, when we debate the balance between security and civil liberties, such as with the PATRIOT ACT, the fear is that the added powers that were initially granted for a specific purpose will be abused by the government.

But the reasoning behind allowing this enlargement of government authority is to protect citizens from harm.


I believe the same situation may exist with other non-classical areas in which we allow (massive (federal) ) control over areas of our lives for the promise of greater safety...

I think the idea is worth kicking around a bit; that when we accept greater government regulation, social safety nets, and other large govt. programs that require more tax money, laws and other types of government involvement in our lives, are we not engaging in this same balancing act of liberty/autonomy for safety/security?

No. We simply do not want to go against these measures. Are you brave enough to stand against SS, or the IRS? I'm not.

And should issues of this type not be treated with the same levels of scrutiny and skepticism that are given to the more classical liberty vs. security situations?

Yes, they should. But in the same way, people are given the choice between security and freedom (a false choice), and generally choose security. Politicians generally choose whatever keeps them in office and in the good graces of those who give them bribes.

Not all are bad (Fern's post), but in the same way, they are too often accepted, not questioned, as by blind faith.

 

[Rainsford]

I think the title really frames the debate nicely, and it's the part of the quote that most people leave out. The idea that we should NEVER trade liberty for security is silly. Of course it's not always such a clean tradeoff, but if we get substantial security at the expense of a little liberty, a lot of people would probably be in favor it. We can't have a society where everyone is free to do whatever they want, for obvious reasons. Laws that prevent you from randomly firing your gun in all directions in highly populated areas seems like a good example of something like this.

However, what we want to avoid is trading essential liberty for temporary (or trivial) safety. People who oppose the PATRIOT Act for example, including myself, aren't just opposed to it because we view it as a substantial decline in liberty, but because we also view it as a trivial increase in security. Really, this is the key point. People who present anything from just one side of things are missing this, the idea is to strike the best balance in EVERY area, not just the most obvious form of security...or the most obvious form of liberty.