Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

I agree with all of my opponent's definitions, and will now present my main arguments. I would like to make it clear that increasing rights and personal freedoms of citizens does not necessarily mean decreasing military strength and security and vice versa. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. HOWEVER, it should be noted with only several exceptions, the most powerful military powers throughout history have been authoritarian governments. Once again, authoritarianism is not necessary for a strong military, but it is certainly easier to maintain tight national security when the government has tighter control of the people. One example of this is mandatory military service by at least part of the population. I. National Independence Having a military is having power. A powerful economy leads to a powerful military which can then be used to further increase economic power by influencing weaker nations into decisions that will benefit the stronger nation and keeping other nations from making decisions that detriment the strong one for fear of military action. As a result, the economy benefits, which then allows the military to be expanded etc. If a nation does not have a formidable military, then it can easily be "bullied" by other nations. Being heavily influenced and threatened would be the best scenario in this case, occupation and a puppet government owned by the more powerful nation is the worst case scenario. Either way, the nation and its people lose their freedom and dignity as they are forced to act by the will of another nation, for someone else's benefit. It is certainly worth sacrificing some "personal freedoms" of the citizens in order to maintain national independence. II. Survival of the nation's people In a more extreme example, a nation might be totally overrun or eradicated by a neighbor with more military might. Personal freedom doesn't win conflicts, and it is necessary (for the very survival of the people) to maintain a military that is on par with its neighbors. If the nation in question is conquered, then there would be oppression, loss of culture and internal turmoil that could've been avoided. III. The government exists to protect the people Why do the people of the world not embrace anarchy? Why not annihilate the government structures and live with total freedom? People created a governing body for many reasons, but the single, largest role the government plays is ensuring the safety of its people. It is supposed to do what's best in order to hold its borders, keep its citizens safe from criminals as well as neighboring, potentially aggressive nations. The government, by its very existence, must strive to maximize the security of its citizens to a reasonable extent. IV. Trust and Order Even if people are limited in certain ways, it is certainly worth the feeling of security. If people feel safe, then they trust their government and the nation becomes more united as a whole. A stronger security force or military is also good for national propaganda, which also serves to unite the people under one flag. If the people feel insecure and don't trust their government to protect them, they often take matters into their own hands which leads to disorder and increased criminal activity as every person wants the best for themselves and doesn't want to depend on the government to make things better. It seems clear that security of a nation takes priority over the rights of its citizens. I await my opponent's response.