Is "Freedom vs. Security" always a zero sum tradeoff?, Without one, do we really have

[OrangeEmpire]

An interesting article that addresses this question.

 

[GVF]

An interesting article that addresses this question.

For freedom, there must be some type of security. That is a multi-faceted plate of armor. It could be self-security as in the old west. Regardless of left or right, it is also a group of peoples banded together for common purposes and desires. In order to perpetuate freedom through generations, there will always have to be a non-fragmented central security.

 

[volinbham]

We also have the issue of individual vs collective freedom.

Locking up a child predator removes individual freedom from one but provides freedom from fear for many parents.

In short, as the article suggests it is much more complicated than a 1 to 1 relationship between security and freedom.

 

[crazyguy]

But hey if we all agree that it's complicated then we can't rant and rave at those who disagree with us over one simple point. Making things complicated limits the blame that we can stick on any one person as a target and forces us to come up with original thoughtful solutions rather than just mudslinging. That's just too complicated. I'll let my party decide for me.