Which do you choose?

D

dimpy.handa

Dimpy Handa
More on ethics than morals but a quick question:

Would you rather be safe and have alot of security from your country and inturn lose your complete freedom such as privacy and free thought.
OR
would you rather keep your privacy and free thought but live in a world more prone to insecurity, for example; people being less watch so they had more opportunity to commit crime without high risk of being caught.

Which do you choose?
 
For me my security comes first. What would I do with my freedom and thoughts if I am not secure to express them. Take example of Taliban, where women are completely oppressed of their freedom and if any one makes a stand out she would be killed brutely.
Hence, security is foremost step to experience the freedom.
When we think of the major threats to our national security, the first to come to mind are nuclear proliferation, rogue states and global terrorism. But another kind of threat lurks beyond our shores, one from nature, not humans - an avian flu pandemic: Barack Obama
 
I would like to balance both.Freedom w/o boundary leads to unrest and no freedom is worser.There must always be a balance b/w the 2 worlds to make life interesting and to have growth.

-Deepak.
 
I feel there should be proper balance b/w security & freedom...
more security means less freedom
I would choose 2nd statement..
 
Both the word "freedom" and the word "security" are emotionally loaded.

They don't necessarily mean what we think they mean. Most often when people refer to security, they mean a condition where there are no worries or no concerns for the present or future. When they speak of freedom they mean no constraints or no rules. Neither definition is complete or adequate to true security or true freedom.

If we expect our government to provide security then we must realize we will have to sacrifice a portion of our freedom. In general, we cannot have both at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top