3 ms·

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, o

by gcanyon 8mo 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.

roywiggins 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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.
- gcanyon 8mo ago
  Your argument is with GP who proposed that the security might be false. But I will say I don't think you should say "options," but rather "possibilities." "Options" implies that all four are actually available. I don't think you get to assume that 4 is possible without offering evidence.
  - foxyv 8mo ago
    It depends on context for sure. Without a specific case study you can't really say. However, in general, they are not exclusive. This has been demonstrated fairly often. In fact, it is often the case that maximizing liberty leads to more security. https://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/europeanamericanrelationship/content/articles/events/2010foufp/participant-papers/Is_there_really_a_dichotomy_between_security_and_liberty.pdf https://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/europeanamericanrelationsh... https://www.securityanddemocracy.org/post/beyond-the-false-choice-a-new-framework-for-democracy-and-security https://www.securityanddemocracy.org/post/beyond-the-false-c...

by gcanyon 8mo ago

roywiggins 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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.

gcanyon 8mo ago
Your argument is with GP who proposed that the security might be false. But I will say I don't think you should say "options," but rather "possibilities." "Options" implies that all four are actually available. I don't think you get to assume that 4 is possible without offering evidence.
- foxyv 8mo ago
  It depends on context for sure. Without a specific case study you can't really say. However, in general, they are not exclusive. This has been demonstrated fairly often. In fact, it is often the case that maximizing liberty leads to more security. https://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/europeanamericanrelationship/content/articles/events/2010foufp/participant-papers/Is_there_really_a_dichotomy_between_security_and_liberty.pdf https://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/europeanamericanrelationsh... https://www.securityanddemocracy.org/post/beyond-the-false-choice-a-new-framework-for-democracy-and-security https://www.securityanddemocracy.org/post/beyond-the-false-c...