Another way of looking at it is some people fear having things taken away that they do not deserve or cannot attain for themselves. Others fear being prevented from attaining what they want.

I don't think anyone really wants freedom and all it entails. (Watch the movie Dersu Uzala and think of yourself alone out in a Siberian snowstorm to visualize what I mean).

Randall:

Thanks for the movie tip. I've added it to my list. Speaking of snowstorms, by coincidence I am about halfway through my quadrennial reading of Jack London's collected works. "White Fang" speaks specifically to Orrin's recurring theme of freedom and security.

The benefit of living in a society based on the ideals of ordered liberty is incalcuable. The tension between the pull of security versus liberty is almost identical to that between the promise of the earthly socialist paradise and the acknowledgment of human limitations and the impossibilty of redesiging human nature. This is not a perfect world and evil will either be faced and destroyed at the temporary cost to 'liberty' or it will destroy any hope of freedom. Liberty is worth dying for. Temporary security is not. The European 'debate' regarding the treatment of Islamic terrorists is generated by the value free mentality all too common among contintental Europeans and the left in general. Among most, liberty means license and security goes hand in hand with appeasement. Who really cares what they think?

That's the wrong way to look at it. The desire for security is perfectly legitimate. A liberty that doesn't afford sufficient security to satisfy the desire for security won't endure.

Tom C. has it exactly right. The desire for security is self limiting at least as it is defined by socialistic countries like in Europe. Security based systems collapse under there own weight due to the constant erosion by human nature. The reason is because it comes at the expense of liberty and is counter to human nature, that is, it is not complementary to human nature but is a control on human nature. Liberty on the other hand runs lock step with our inclinations, both the bad and the good ones, but ultimately keeps us moving forward. Liberty can be wrong a hundred times but right once and still be successful. Security must be right 100% of the time, one failure and it is over. It therefore is not practical and causes great pain as people attempt to do the impossible.

Liberty is a limitation on freedom though. It is freedom that balances security in being unattainable as absolutes.

To be free is to keep faith with those you love. If you can't feed them, or alternatively if they're at the mercy of bandits, then you're not free. However the apparatus we put up to secure freedom empowers the sort who enjoy breaking that faith in other people. At an extreme you get hells like North Korea, where they give the husband the gun and make him execute his own wife. Tyrants know what freedom is.

OJ: They're Americans. They forget that for most humans who have ever lived, "security" means whether they're going to eat tomorrow.

Individual freedom doesn't mean people can't work together for their common good.

Sometimes readings these posts and comments, I think I've stumbled onto a bunch of Talmudic scholars and medieval monks deliberating on how many angels can fit on the head of pin.

Too much brilliant thinking to take in all at once.

“Liberty is a limitation on freedom though. It is freedom that balances security in being unattainable as absolutes."

Human nature will ultimately corrupt; (unbalance) any system based on security. The treat is from the top, dictators, bureaucrats, cultural elitists, etc...

Human nature will ultimately corrupt; (unbalance) any system based on freedom. The treat is from the bottom, thugs, gangsters, idiots, etc.

A system based on Liberty is an optimization routine that minimizes threats from the top and bottom, while maximizing freedom and security. It is the only rational form of government. Anything else is a leap of faith or an optimization on another variable (freedom, security) and therefore unstable.

"Liberty", as you use it, has to include freedom to fail. Thus, it is insecure.

To make this more basic, people hate change. It almost doesn't matter what the change is.

David:

Yes, it also isn't free. It's a compromise.

""Liberty", as you use it, has to include freedom to fail. Thus, it is insecure."

Insecure yes, but self correcting and not unstable

Blimey, I didn't expect the spanish inquisiti-