Freedom and security

Mack Holter

I think that the only time people should give up freedom is when they get something in exchange that they need and cannot provide for themselves.  In 1 Samuel of the Hebrew Bible, the people make a request for a king to lead them and to specifically go and fight their battles for them.  Thus, one of the biggest things that people sacrifice their freedom for is the assurance that they have some protection.  This typically applies in a general sense, such as security for the nation.  A person is capable of providing security for themselves in a small sense, because all they need is a gun.  However, if they want protection from other nations, this is where the leader comes into play.  It would be pointless for him to try and protect each citizen in each part of his kingdom, but in regards to the overall safety from other nations, this is where he shines.

            Obviously this is beneficial for the people, but why would they give up that freedom in the first place.  It is required that the amount of freedom that is given up is less in comparison to the amount of safety or whatever they receive.  If they lose more freedom than is worth what they would gain, then most people will oppose that law that removes that freedom.  There are laws that people see all the time and every time they see one, they take the time to weigh out each side.  If the bill provides some necessary or desired effect and removes only a small part of freedom, they will support it.  However, if they do not place a high enough value on the gain, then the loss of freedom supersedes the importance of the bill and they will oppose it.  In regards to the majority, whichever side of the bill has the largest number of supporters and voters will win, deciding if the bill is in the best interests of the majority.