National Security VS Personal Liberties

Which?


  • Total voters
    51
Sulkdodds said:
A single, silly statement backed up by absolutely nothing.

Best. Argument. Ever.

:p

I meant that that was what I was trying to say.
 
15357 said:
I think my argument can be summed up by this message on the highway

Is that before or after the "Big Brother is Watching You" sign?
 
Solaris said:
Is that before or after the "Big Brother is Watching You" sign?

You guys have WAY more Public Security Cameras than we do, hush. :p
 
15357 said:
You guys have WAY more Public Security Cameras than we do, hush. :p
I sabotage them with laser pens :shh:
 
as Benjamin Franklin once said,

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little temporary security will deserve neither and lose both. "

It is repeated throughout history that rulers modify constitutions or laws to remove personal liberties for temporary powers to maintain national security. Caeser did it, Hitler did it, Stalin did it and now Bush is doing it. Usually this temporary bill becomes ultimate law, and the ruler passes more laws and breaks more rules until there are no rules and the ruler has absolute power. I'm not saying bush will end up like Hitler or Stalin, but I want to underscore the ultimate importance of civil liberties vs. national security in history, and as we know, history is likely to repeat itself.
 
National security always. Without national security the benefits of personal freedom will no longer exist. However, that does not mean putting all enphasis on security. You only put as much emphasis on it as is needed. In US history there has never really been a time where national security was needed to the point where it would trump a majority of personal liberties.

At the moment national security is important and should be a high priority, however the amount that is actually required is far less than would severely trump personal liberties.
 
Back
Top