I don't like it because it suggests that freedom and security are somehow at odds with each other, which is already an authoritarian framing of the situation, and really just nonsense. I want to live in a perfectly secure world. I don't think that that is actually achievable, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that goal.
But: There is no such thing as "security" in and off itself, security is always relative to something that you value that you try to protect. So, if you value freedom, you can not achieve security through limiting freedom, because that would mean destroying what you value, supposedly in order to protect it ... but that would obviously be a total failure at achieving that goal.
The point is: Part of living in a world that is as close as possible to perfectly secure is that you have to mitigate the risk of concentration of power in the hands of authoritarians and corrupt people. Limiting the power of the state is a security mechanism, and authoritarians who want to obtain more and more power by calling their power "security" are simply lying.
If you accept that authoritarians dismantling security mechanisms is somehow an increase in security, you have already fallen for their propaganda.
> I don't like it because it suggests that freedom and security are somehow at odds with each other, which is already an authoritarian framing of the situation, and really just nonsense.
Agreed. I think part of the issue stems from how people define freedom, seemingly thinking that freedom means "no rules".
For example: If having rules is intrinsically against freedom, then why would anyone who desires freedom play sports, where rules define the game. If you eliminate the rules, you eliminate the game and your freedom to actually be able to play it.
Freedom means you get to pick the rules; they can't be imposed on you by others. The thing is, you can't pick one set of rules for yourself and a different set for everyone else. Whatever rules you choose to live by must apply equally to everyone. Don't like private property? Fine, but you can't object when others retaliate by seizing the fruits of your labor. Think kidnapping for ransom is harmless fun? Locking you up in prison is essentially the same thing.
The problem is when certain people want others to live by their rules and are willing to apply disproportionate force to get their way. Capital punishment for theft, fines and imprisonment for copyright infringement, penalties for refusing to aid an official investigation, etc.
Freedom and security are at odds with each other, though.
If you’re free to own guns, you’re not free from someone else owning guns and shooting you with one.
If you’re free to drive a car, you’re not free from someone else who drives a car not running into you and killing you.
Sure, they will be punished for it, but the harm to you has already been done. You are not safe from it. It is an unlikely, but possible danger.
The only protection from guns and cars is universal disallowment of guns and cars and the immediate catching and ban of all people that begin the process of creating or thinking about guns or cars.
This example can be spread to almost anything that has any potential of harm at all.
> Freedom and security are at odds with each other, though.
No, they are not.
> If you’re free to own guns, you’re not free from someone else owning guns and shooting you with one.
Or in other words: Different freedoms are at odds with each other.
> If you’re free to drive a car, you’re not free from someone else who drives a car not running into you and killing you.
Or in other words: Different freedoms are at odds with each other.
You might as well be saying that if you are not free to own guns, you are not secure from having your guns taken away. None of that is fundamentally about security vs. freedom, it is only about conflicts between different freedoms that have to be weighed against each other. Arbitrarily labeling one of those freedoms as "security" is a lie.
> The only protection from guns and cars is universal disallowment of guns and cars and the immediate catching and ban of all people that begin the process of creating or thinking about guns or cars.
No, it's not. The only protection from guns and cars is to have everyone agree that owning guns is bad, so noone does, or that owning cars is bad, so noone does, or whatever. The moment you suggest "catching and banning", you are talking about giving some people guns so that they can use them to force others to get rid of their guns, and that is the moment where everyone is at risk of being shot at using one of those guns, be it by mistake, due to corruption, oe whatever the reason might be, so obviously you are not "protected from guns". That is exactly the authoritarian propaganda lie that I was talking about.
There is nothing inherently secure about giving some group of people power, no matter for what purpose you do it. Giving people power is a danger. It's a danger that may be well-justified due to the other dangers that you might be able to control this way, but it is always a danger. It is always about weighing one danger against another, about weighing one freedom against another--framing it as "security vs. freedom" is an authoritarian propaganda lie that tries to convince you that one of those dangers isn't a danger by mislabeling it as "security".
But: There is no such thing as "security" in and off itself, security is always relative to something that you value that you try to protect. So, if you value freedom, you can not achieve security through limiting freedom, because that would mean destroying what you value, supposedly in order to protect it ... but that would obviously be a total failure at achieving that goal.
The point is: Part of living in a world that is as close as possible to perfectly secure is that you have to mitigate the risk of concentration of power in the hands of authoritarians and corrupt people. Limiting the power of the state is a security mechanism, and authoritarians who want to obtain more and more power by calling their power "security" are simply lying.
If you accept that authoritarians dismantling security mechanisms is somehow an increase in security, you have already fallen for their propaganda.