Introduction
Individuals in American society feel that the government secures them without infringing on their freedoms. The government is seen as a safe harbor where citizens feel comfortable under its leadership and protection. However, the government cannot respond to threats and defend the subjects of its control without regard to their freedom. Consider that the government enacts actions and laws attempting to safeguard citizens while withholding minor information from the public. Similarly, the government will employ every ounce of authority available to prevent another insecurity strike. Through this government response, individuals may turn a blind eye if the government behaves differently during times of crisis. Contrary to American society’s awareness, freedom may be jeopardized for the government to provide security. Compromises to individual liberties, government overreach, and persons oblivious to certain privileges illustrate the conflict between freedom and security.
Discussion
The primary tension between liberty and security is that the people’s safety and security is a right that is required and critical for the entire nation. For example, most countries that restrict weapon ownership have below-average murder rates, but the United States allows practically anybody to purchase a firearm, resulting in a high mortality rate (Stanley, 2018). Similarly, several nations prohibit certain practices prevalent in the United States to ensure their inhabitants’ safety. These commonplace practices may include exhibiting symbols of hatred or memorabilia from historical events, resulting in criminal activity. While these facts demonstrate that curtailing certain liberties may assist ensure security, the government should always be honest about its intentions. As the public has seen in the past, the government often violates individual liberties without notice or compliance with the enacted acts and laws. Thus, as illustrated, one has to forgo the other to have one.
People’s liberties may be jeopardized while obtaining government protection because individuals may forego some of their liberties to secure their safety. To oppose communism, for example, Adolph Hitler led the effort to enact the Enabling Act, which authorized the German administration to adopt laws without the approval of Germany’s legislature and endowed him with limitless powers after the 1933 Reichstag fire (Kristoff, 2002).
After the 9/11 hysteria subsided, the US government introduced the first version of the Patriot Act in a similar state of panic, allowing the use of investigative methods developed for organized crime and drug trafficking prevention in counterterrorism investigations (Kristoff, 2002). Individuals were prepared to enable the government to examine the reason for an attack in the event of an attack out of dread of a similar scenario like 9/11. The wake of 9/11-related incidents compelled government agencies to cooperate more closely with their citizens and exchange information, resulting in new acts and regulations to prevent similar occurrences in the future (Kristoff, 2002). Moreover, individuals are prepared to give the government more authority during times of crisis, with the certainty that these authorities would not hinder their freedom and would not be used against law-abiding residents.
Another source of friction between liberty and security is racial prejudice. In the United States, 49% of respondents to a study regarding their attitudes toward the First Amendment said it was excessive (Kristoff, 2002). This data demonstrates that people are prone to reaffirm their support for the Bill of Rights during times of increased peril. Further, they protect free speech and the right to religious expression under the First Amendment (Bhagwat, 2015). Nevertheless, many may argue that these rights are unimportant in times of danger, and not everyone has the same inherent entitlement to these laws. Additionally, after the terrorist attacks, some may consider that the culprits guilty of the crime and those who are not but share the same beliefs should not have the same rights as the other citizens (Kristoff, 2002). As a result of these beliefs, many people of the concerned races believe that some of their freedom must be sacrificed.
Individual freedom is compromised when the government exceeds its authority, even though rules and regulations exist. The essay “Liberty vs. Security: An Ancient Conflict Resurrected in the Age of Terror” demonstrates Sensenbrenner, who assisted in the initial development of the Patriot Act immediately following 9/11, felt betrayed by the government’s arrogance in the aftermath of Snowden’s revelations about the NSA’s abuse of the Act (Haynes, 2015). This revelation reveals that the government is not abiding by current acts and laws and is not candid with the public about its activities. Although the USA Freedom Act should be implemented, it has underlying worries about the government abusing its authority (Haynes, 2015). In light of this, it is evident that these rules include many gray areas, allowing the government to carry out some duties that infringe on an individual’s liberties.
The fundamental values of success, patriotism, and loyalty inspire the view that certain personal freedoms are jeopardized for citizens to gain security from the government. Some individuals may be unwilling to accept that the government is invading their liberties for the sake of security, raising doubts about their allegiance. However, believing that personal liberties are not jeopardized is ignorant. By recognizing that liberties are being violated, people will begin to understand that the government will go to any length to guarantee security and further its purpose. Once the truth is revealed, progress might be made toward increasing public awareness of the government’s activities, resulting in new legislation protecting civilians. This accomplishment may also result in the restoration of patriotism since some citizens may feel deceived by the government and no longer feel the same way about their nation. Working toward these essential ideals may result in individuals realizing their freedom are under threat, but it can also guarantee that the government works toward improving systems or enacting new legislation.
Conclusion
When all this information is considered, it is evident that the government jeopardizes individual freedom to ensure national security. Several factors contribute to this, including infringement on individual liberties, government overreach, and individual disregard for certain liberties. In light of this, citizens must recognize that their activities affect government functions. If people are ready to tolerate the government exceeding its bounds during times of crisis, the government will refrain from abusing its authority in the future. Thus, the government must be more honest about existing actions and legislation, and the state should remove any grey areas in these regulations and increase the transparency of the rules. There will always be instances when the government infringes on individual liberties in times of crisis, but the people should be informed.
References
Bhagwat, A. (2015). The democratic first amendment. Northwestern University Law Review, 110, 1097.
Haynes, D. D. (2015). Liberty vs. Security: An old debate renewed in the age of terror. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. Web.
Kristof, N. D. (2002). Security and freedom. New York Times. Web.
Stanley, J. (2018). A pro-liberty case for gun restrictions. ACLU. Web.