Security vs Freedom
I’ve decided to share essays they've written for class assignments mostly in order to receive feedback and improve my writing and analytical skills. This is a second draft from a work assigned where we were supposed to write in regards to which value should we prioritize over: Security or freedom.
Freedom and security have led to one of the most polarized debates of the 21st Century. As demonstrated by the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001, approved by the United States Congress, difficulties can derive from allowing the nation-state to infringe one’s liberties by valuing security, or the sense of, over freedom. Citizens were confronted by the realization that the undermining of their freedoms became, surprisingly, lawful in the name of national security. The purpose of the present essay is to assess the importance of security and freedom, and determine whether we should prioritize security over freedom, or vice versa.
What’s understood as security and freedom?
World leaders invoke security in many discussions following reforms, national tragedies, and so on. By following the predominant realist view, they tend to argue that security should be of main concern, and only through the constant increase of economic and military capabilities can the international actors guarantee their survival. This conception of security assumes that people are under a constant threat that’s capable of inflicting harm, and it’s the state’s responsibility to create barriers that reduces their impact or appearances against individuals. Undoubtedly, security became an essential component of society, as demonstrated by the World’s Banks’ Voices of the Poor study, which argues that security represents consistent food supplies, housing, clothing and stable income since they become only achievable in an environment that protects daily life from crime and provides psychological security.[1] In practice, this is achieved by the establishment of law enforcement agencies or legislation that seeks to limit one’s conduct. [2]
Nonetheless, the concept of freedom clashes with the barriers imposed by the state. As defended by Thomas Hobbes, freedom is a right that individuals gain from the state of nature that allows them to act without limits[3]. For the Founding Fathers of the United States, for example, freedom prevented the reemergence of tyranny in their territory, by allowing citizens to enjoy “God-given rights” which would allow them to pursue their motivations, without the interference of any external authority[4]. It can be suggested that supporters of freedom value a less disturbed state that allows those under its authority to act and interact with each other, despite the anarchy of the prevailing order. If dictated or removed by any state, the resulting system would more likely lead to an oppressive rule, as the USA Patriot act demonstrated.
The concept of freedom has had several alterations, two of which are important to note due to their influence on the nation-state behavior. The first alteration to consider is the social contract, formulated by Hobbes as the renouncement of part of one’s freedom in exchange for common security. This notion provided the framework for the formulation of laws and institutions, since complete freedom could otherwise result in the harm of others. The second alteration derives from the Johannesburg Principles, which transcended the representation of freedom as merely human acts, and incorporated the access to information as a vital component.[5]
Security vs freedom
Because of these evident differences, the debate on the compromises caused by security and freedom remains, despite the action taken by societies to ensure a balance. Considering the descriptions mentioned, both concepts give the impression that they’re associated with the senses and perceptions of the population. Nonetheless, as U.S legislation portraited, the prioritization of security or freedom is rather dependent on them. After the reemergence of terrorist acts and national security as the core of foreign policy, particularly on Western territories, the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll reported that ‘’54% of Americans say it can be necessary to scarify freedoms”[6]. It can be argued that when the balance between security and freedom tilts towards the former, it’s essentially because of a short-term concern that perceives the state’s functions and reach insufficient in regards to one’s needs, despite the consequences that may develop afterwards. The US Patriot Act isn’t the only case of study of changes in legislation that supports this. The Terrorism Act 2000 was also an anti-terror measure taken by the U.K conditioned mostly by terrorism in Northern Ireland, that eventually led to several cases of ethnic profiling and arbitrary deprivation of liberty, thus to the undermining of freedom[7].
Essentially, the valuing of security over freedom has resulted in reforms and orders with long-term effects that continuously undermine citizens right to act freely. A common practice from supporters of this view includes referring the legitimization of power as a matter of “national interest” suggesting that it includes and benefits everyone, while labeling freedom as a temporary advantage, whose extent is to be determined by the corresponding authority. This modern conception overwrites the works of Hobbes and the Founding Fathers, who valued the fundamental role that freedom plays constantly: the assurance to society that it has the capacity to choose, think, value, and so on, without interference within those choices. Otherwise, the reasons to act would be discouraged, and the risks of punishing individuals without crimes committed greater. It’s no surprise that countries that prioritize freedom enjoy more advantages and opportunities as the Human Freedom Index reports, with higher per capita income, democracy, and the like[8].
In conclusion, it’s argued that freedom should be prioritized over security. The consequences of the sense of security are considered detrimental for development, despite the temporary comfort they may provide. Because basic human rights restrictions remain as a constant underlying risk, increase in security needs to be analyzed and considered comprehensively. Freedom, in contrast, needs to remain as a vital component of societies that can guarantee the well-being for those who enact it.
[1] Narayan, D., Chambers, R., et al. (2000) Illbeing: The Bad Life. Voices of the Poor: Crying Out for Change. [PDF File] Retrieved October 22, 2017 from: http://www.gsdrc.org/topic-guides/safety-security-and-justice/concepts/the-importance-of-safety-security-and-justice/ (pag.32)
[2] Jackson-Preece, J. (2011) The idea of security. Security in international relations. [PDF File] Retrieved October 22, 2017 from http://w01.uolia.wf.ulcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/programme_resources/lse/lse_pdf/subject_guides/ir3140_ch1-3.pdf (pag.13)
[3]Thomas Hobbes: social contract. [Online] Retrieved October 22, 2017 from: https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Hobbes/hobbes_social_contract.html (paragraph 4)
[4] Levin, M. (2009) On liberty and tyranny. Liberty and Tyranny [PDF File] Retrieved October 22, 2017 from:https://ronloneysbooks.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/liberty-and-tyranny-by-mark-levin.pdf
[5] Dornan, M. (2011) Security vs Liberty? Is there a trade off? [Online] Retrieved October 29, 2017 from: http://www.e-ir.info/2011/06/23/security-vs-liberty-is-there-a-trade-off/ (paragraph 3)
[6] The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (2015) Americans Evaluate the Balance Between Security and Civil Liberties. [PDF File] Retrieved October 22, 2017 from http://www.apnorc.org/PDFs/Security/2015-12%20Security%20and%20Civil%20Liberties_FINAL.pdf
[7] Dornan, M. (2011) Security vs Liberty? Is there a trade off? [Online] Retrieved October 29, 2017 from: http://www.e-ir.info/2011/06/23/security-vs-liberty-is-there-a-trade-off/ (paragraph 12)
[8] Porčnik, T., Vásquez, I. (2016) The Human Freedom Index-2016. [Online] Retrieved October 29, 2017 from: https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index (paragraph 4)
