Is There A Trade Off Between Liberty & Security | Learn Liberty

What is the connection between liberty and
security? To some extent liberty requires security. You can’t be free if you’re
constantly harangued on every corner by people who might take your property, your life, your
liberty. Indeed John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government argued that the purpose of government
was to create a kind of security for those things that would allow for liberty. Specifically,
he argued that the government should provide for the security of life, liberty, and property.
Once your life, your liberty, and your property are secure, then you can begin to use your
liberty effectively. You can do the things you want in life. But what if we want the government to secure
us against other things besides just those three? There are, after all, lots of risks
in the world. Life is full of risks. Suppose we want the government to begin guaranteeing
us against other kinds of risks. Risks from terrorism, risks from disease, risks associated
with old age, and on and on. Once you begin to think about all the risky behaviors and
all the risks that life poses, there are an awful lot of things that a government might
have to do. Well, should we ask the government to protect
us against all of those? Here’s something to consider. The more security we want, it
comes at a price. What is the price? It’s not just money, although it is money. It’s
not just time and energy, it’s also our liberty. Because the more things the government
protects us against, the more things that we no longer have control over ourselves.
And we may reach a point, there may be a threshold at which we no longer have really any liberty.
If we’ve asked the government to secure us against all risks, no cost barred, then
what we’ve done effectively is we’ve handed over all of the authority, all of the discretion
over our decisions and our lives to some other entity, to the state. At that point we have
effectively zero liberty. But not only do we not have liberty then, we probably also
don’t have security, precisely because we are no longer in control of our lives, somebody
else is. It reminds us of that famous quote from Benjamin Franklin, something to the effect
of, people who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither, and
they’ll probably end up losing both. That contains some important wisdom. Liberty and security are tradeoffs. The more
security we get, the less liberty we’re going to have. Now where exactly is the tradeoff?
Where exactly is the threshold beyond which we shouldn’t go? People of good faith might
have differing views about that, but I would add one other aspect to the Franklin quote.
And that is that liberty is not just a tradeoff against security. Liberty is also the thing
that gives us dignity. We have human, moral dignity because we have liberty. So if we
are giving our liberty away in exchange for security, we’re not only losing the liberty,
but we’re also losing to that same extent some of our dignity. That’s a very high
price to pay and once we give that liberty up it may be very difficult to ever get it

14 thoughts on “Is There A Trade Off Between Liberty & Security | Learn Liberty

  1. I've yet to see a Learn Liberty vid that has not been 100% worth the time. Valuable ideas are contained therein.

  2. Well said! We have sacrificed far too much liberty in the name of security since 9/11.

  3. @LearnLiberty WHY, HOW is it that charging the state with control over the minutiae of our lives would lead to less security, simply because someone else is controlling us? I know the answer, but you didn't say it, you just jumped there with nothing in between, and people who don't already agree with you need to have this explained to them. Your conclusion does, after all, go against the mainstream media interpretation that increased control always means increased safety. Please elucidate!

  4. Possibly the best video on the internet. Every citizen of the US should watch it…as many times as it takes to sink in.

  5. Security provided at the expense of liberty is a fallacy. Governments pose a far greater threat to the life, liberty and property of individuals than any of the boogie men they create to justify their tyranny. Real security can only be provided through voluntary commerce.

  6. Nobody has said it better. For those who don't know these things, this video could be life changing.

  7. There's an unfortunate muddying of the waters with the weapons and technology of today. The first thing Professor Otteson brings up is a government's responsibility to ensure security of life, liberty and property. But then he brings up security against terrorism, which is essentially a threat to all three of these things. How does a government protect my right to life from someone who hides in the shadows blowing up cars and buildings without crossing any lines?

  8. It seems there is a Laffer curve of liberty: With a little security there is only a little liberty and with maximum security there is also only a little liberty.

  9. The dignity part is a very important aspect in my opinion. Especially when explaining this position to others.

  10.  "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton    History has shown that when people give the government more power because the people want more security, the government becomes addicted to power.  They will go to ANY lengths to increase and maintain their power.

  11. "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
    HL Menchen

  12. What I want most of all is security from government infringing on my liberty. Our Bill of Rights pretty much has this covered……………..if corrupt politicians can be kept from tampering with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *