Freedom is as important as security. We humans need both freedom and security. Security needs to be balanced with freedom because without freedom we would be living in fear of the state or the government demanding of us, or dictating, what to do. There should be a balance between security and freedom. As freedom is important to us, so is security to society.
Freedom and security are never traded in equal amounts. Against every imaginary freedom the points you give for security, you really gain a fraction of a 'unit' of security. While there should be basic laws and regulations, people should have the freedom to decide on what these laws and regulations are. Currently, the basic laws and rights we should be guaranteed by the constitution are being taken away.
You may have all the security measures at your command, there will never again be a terrorist attack or murder, yet you will be hit by a motor car while walking down the street. Life is short: I would rather live it my way.
The area of freedom, security and justice was created to ensure the free movement of persons and to offer a high level of protection to citizens. It covers policy areas that range from the management of the country's external borders to judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. It includes asylum and immigration policies, police cooperation, and the fight against crimes: terrorism, organised crime, trafficking in human beings, drugs, etc.
If you are in prison, you are safer but have a lot less freedom. Anyone wants to voluntarily incarcerate himself or herself? Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Freedom trumps 'security' in my opinion because of two reasons. i) Pragmatically, if people are free, they are able to create their own safety freely, with no restriction. ii) On a personally philosophical level, freedom is simply of an inherent value and is 'right', if you want to use the term.
Freedom is more important than security, because security without freedom is worthless. Without freedom, high security runs the risk of eroding into fascism or a totalitarian state. Slaves in America lived in a fairly secure environment, but lacked freedom. What kind of life is this? A free society comes with inherent risks. However, it is better to be free and potentially unsafe, rather than to be in a secure condition but under oppression.
Freedom is more important than security because it provides greater opportunities for growth. Freedom is more important than security to many people, because it offers endless possibilities in life. A country where citizens are free to choose their careers, their homes and jobs is full of prospects and contentment. A less secure nation involves risks, but at least it has the potential to develop intellectually. I personally would rather have the choice to make my own decisions; I can also obtain my own security through hard work.
Do we need to choose either freedom or security? The right answer is somewhere in the middle. Absolute security is unattainable. Absolute freedom is simply anarchy. Weighing two broad, abstract concepts against one another ultimately serves little purpose, as it is nothing but a futile dichotomy of sorts. The real question to ask oneself is 'what freedoms are worth giving up for increased security?'
If you think that upon having all your freedoms, you could ever want security, would be amazing. What is the point in having freedom if we are not safe to enjoy it? My reasoning are as fallows: i) Take away your pride and see that we are safe in the little net the government provides us. ii) Lose someone you care about and then tell me freedom is greater than security.
The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe. Without security, everyone would be in the midst of hazards. If you get rid of security, there would be no laws around security. No laws means that people could go around the streets killing anyone they want to and harming people. It would be complete anarchy. Hundred per cent freedom would still be limited because you can never be truly 'free'. There will always be obstacles to the way -- to stop complete freedom. No freedom is worthless if you wake up the slaves in another country, or if you never wake up at all but die away because you were foolish enough not to do what was needed to be done.
In today's society, security has become a very important issue that needs to be attended to, more so than freedom. The thousands of people who died in terrorist attacks worldwide could have been saved, with proper security. It is understandable that this idea should not be taken too far, but it is a priority.
Safety is needed more than freedom. Without safety there is no freedom. Freedom comes when people know they are safe. If they feel unsafe, they will not feel free. Would you go out into the world knowing that at any time you could be attacked or killed? Safety could detect these things and help us in defeating the fear we have as humans in this contemporary society.
But the problem is that security is basically designed to ensure that one can practise basic freedoms. If we have no security, then people can harm us when we practise our freedoms. A certain amount of security is necessary for freedom. As such, I consider security marginally more important than freedom, especially since when this argument was brought up. It usually involves a small amount of freedom and a great deal of security. Obviously one must analyse the trade-off closely.
Security creates freedom. Freedom was earned back when Bangladesh was created. Therefore, we must keep what we have earned by organising the nation and keeping its citizens safe. Security ensures freedom that all can enjoy. Take the Middle East, for example. Anarchy and violence rule the streets just because the rights of the people cannot be secured. If the Middle East took the time to provide security to its people, then freedom would be achieved.
Freedom can only be maintained in an orderly society. If we do not have well-set rules and regulations, then we would basically become a lawless society. This would be a mess. For example, if you are driving a car and there are no rules, just fun - then what will happen? The amount of accidents and deaths would be at an all-time high. Insurance companies will, therefore, be forced to raise their rates. Reckless young people would be putting their lives and innocent people on the road at risk. Not to mention the drunken drivers. There are reasons why rules are set in place.
A small amount of safety is not worth any amount of a loss of liberty. Remember the German history from the 1930s. The liberties and freedoms of the German people were taken away by small bits at a time in a way that they could agree with having more safety, until they had neither.
Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the rights: (a) not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause; (b) not to be detained without trial; (c) to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources; (d) not to be tortured in any way; and (e) not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.
This combines the right to freedom and security with a person's bodily integrity. You have the right to make your own decisions about your body, and be free of violence. We have a right to our freedom - to not to have our movements restricted, or to not to be unjustifiably detained. You cannot be constrained if it is unreasonable or procedurally unfair on the part of the state to do, which is linked to why we need a fair and just legal system. This is also why we cannot be detained without a trial.
Freedom and security are not only a concern within an autocratic or tyrannical state. Violence can also take place during the process of post-conflict democratisation, especially during the period of reconciliation and rehabilitation. Freedom of speech is the principal pillar of a free government or state. When this support is taken away, the constitution or charter of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected in its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigour from a popular examination of the action of their magistrates.
The writer is a retired Professor
of Economics, BCS General Education Cadre.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
