It has to be a balancing act. We need a certain amount of security to live, but, yes, too much restricts freedom. It's too much of a generalization to say we shouldn't give up any freedom to gain security, but we have to be aware of what we're giving up and decide if it's worth it.
This is a bit of a straw man argument. No sane person wants to be 100% safe. It's like the law of marginal returns, at some point giving up more freedom isn't worth the security it gives you.
For example the NSA's mass surveillance is a huge invasion of personal liberty and it has done very little to prevent attacks. On the other hand, you have the taxes you pay for emergency services like fire and ambulance. The mandatory loss of money is a restriction of your liberty, but the marginal benefit to society is enormous.
This reductionist argument isn't really helpful for figuring out what policies are best for society
davegammelgard on February 8th, 2018 at 15:45 UTC »
It has to be a balancing act. We need a certain amount of security to live, but, yes, too much restricts freedom. It's too much of a generalization to say we shouldn't give up any freedom to gain security, but we have to be aware of what we're giving up and decide if it's worth it.
browniancoffee on February 8th, 2018 at 15:59 UTC »
This is a bit of a straw man argument. No sane person wants to be 100% safe. It's like the law of marginal returns, at some point giving up more freedom isn't worth the security it gives you.
For example the NSA's mass surveillance is a huge invasion of personal liberty and it has done very little to prevent attacks. On the other hand, you have the taxes you pay for emergency services like fire and ambulance. The mandatory loss of money is a restriction of your liberty, but the marginal benefit to society is enormous.
This reductionist argument isn't really helpful for figuring out what policies are best for society
JonTitor2020 on February 8th, 2018 at 16:01 UTC »
This is Kreiger.
This is Krieger on drugs.