← Back to context

Comment by gcanyon

11 days ago

If you assume that the security side of the equation is a false promise, then you are not making a decision at all: choosing between liberty with no security, or no liberty plus no security (because it's fake).

And for me, it seems somewhat disingenuous to imply that a decision is being made when your premise belies that.

6 comments

gcanyon

Reply
roywiggins  11 days ago

It's not that security is fake, it's that giving up liberty doesn't naturally produce more security, and pursuing greater liberty doesn't necessarily erode security either.

It's not like pre-Revolutionary America was a notably secure place that inevitably see-sawed into a freer but insecure place afterwards.

  • gcanyon  9 days ago

    As I said to the other respondent, I think it's important to justify the idea that both security and liberty can be achieved simultaneously.

    • roywiggins  8 days ago

      Equally, the idea that there is a tradeoff in some particular situation is frequently asserted without evidence. The quote from the article is "It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties."

      That is 1) presented without evidence and 2) almost certainly false. It is not always the case.

foxyv  9 days ago

It's a false dichotomy. There are 4 options:

1. Don't give up liberty, give up security.

2. Give up liberty, give up security.

3. Give up liberty, don't give up security.

4. Don't give up liberty, don't give up security.

Number 4 is completely possible. It's just that people in power don't like it because it means they have less power. They want to pretend that only options 1 and 3 are available and ignore that they are actually offering option 2.