Resolved: Freedom is more important than Security.

For discussion of the BOP refer to the comments. Freedom is certainly an important value to hold and definitely contains significance in the realms of values and philosophy. However, there are clear reasons to think that Freedom is of less value than Security. I accept the definitions my opponent posed. I will offer four primary arguments against the notion that freedom is of greater value than security. My first argument is that Freedom is not intrinsically valuable. Furthermore, Security has more instrumental value. Next will be Security leads to better freedom. My last argument is that Anarchy is not an ideal system compared to the state. Quite simply we should all agree that a person does not have the right to do whatever he desires to do. In fact, it’s impossible to have complete freedom; we are bound by our characteristics and by our past. However, true security (which is what we are arguing about) preserves life and prevents instability. Therefore, logically it prevents more deaths than Freedom. Unrestricted freedom (including brute freedom) has been shown in the past to create disastrous results. When individual freedom is unrestricted by laws people devise ways to achieve power over other people. True security would never do this thing, because by definition the individuals would not have the amount of freedom to attain this power. What good is the greatest amount of freedom if you don’t have a platform of security in which to express it? If I were to endow you with all the freedom in the world in front of a firing squad do you have any platform to exercise your freedom? No, thus freedom restriction makes all the sense equal to our capacity to exercise the right. This is why freedom isn’t intrinsically valuable; it only has instrumental value because if freedom doesn’t bring about something else with value, it ceases to be valuable. The cases of discrimination upon blacks after the civil war might be an example. We are only truly free to exercise our freedom in a secure environment. Freedom of expression may be able to prevent many deaths, but only if it is protected by a platform of security in which we automatically remove more preventable deaths. This is why Security better supports life, and since life is of greater value than freedom, the thing that insures this life better is of greater value. The fact is that because Security provides something greater and more effectively (for reasons formerly discussed) than Freedom, Security has greater instrumental value. There are many reasons to think that Life is of a greater value than freedom. Without life, humans cannot maximize pleasure and satisfaction derived from the other values (such as Freedom). Life is a prerequisite for happiness, love and freedom. Even the great psychologist Abraham Maslow supports this view when he places survival at the foundation of his triangular-hierarchy. Another way to look at this might be in terms of time period. While any sacrifice of life is surely permanent, sacrifices of freedom needn’t be. Besides if we have no life, it stands to reason that you can have no other values. Security also better leads to many things that freedom cannot completely account for. Happiness is better supported by Security as well. For example, all most everyone in the United States is Free (notable exception include Charles Manson), not everyone is happy. According to study done by General Social Survey(. http://www.technologyreview.com...), the biggest thing that makes people happy (or correlates with happiness) is health (20 percent more happy than average person). Another aspect is marriage (10 percent). The last aspect that is important is income (3.5 percent). Life necessarily has a level of health to go along with it. But true security would provide health more effectively than Freedom, after all having your physical body protected via Security is more effective than by arbitrary freedoms. Next with marriage, certainly marriage is a symbol of security more so than the singles life of freedom. Further, in practice, marriage is a form of security in the sense you rely on this partner and they provide you with security and love (obviously). While financial freedom is great, financial security is better. You can maintain income and you typically have more of this. Therefore, happiness is better supported by Security than by freedom. This next objection requires a bit of explanation. There are two different kinds of freedom, metaphysical and political freedom. In this debate, however, we are focusing on the latter. Political freedom can be seen in two different ways. The common sense meaning of political freedom is having no restraints placed upon you by the government. This would seem to be the ultimate limit of political freedom, which we will call brute freedom. However, there is a more subtle and sophisticated conception of freedom that can be employed. People can be a slave to their addictions, passions and desires; and when they are, they are not really free, even though they are doing what they desire. Really being free is not merely doing what you desire but having rational and reasoned control over what you desire and how you chose to achieve that. When we want to be free, what we really want to do is what is rational and in our best interests. Being a slave to your passions and having meaningless and brute freedom is really meaningless. Because such irrational actions are not consistent with rational freedom, a government can increase its citizens’ rational freedom. Security and laws are necessary to develop the existence of true freedom. If you end up giving people brute freedom you end up with anarchy. Brute freedom must be limited by Security but rational freedom needn’t be. This is why rational freedom is better than brute freedom. This rational freedom is promoted by certain restrictions on our actions, restrictions which encourage a person to act rationally. This shows that reasonable and useful freedom is only useful if security and laws support for it. “Rather than negating freedom, (government) creates it. If men are to be free, they must live by rational rules; otherwise they will be slaves of their passions and the victims of the passions of others. ” –Robert Hoffman “Anarchism” The argument I making here is that pure freedom is to Anarchy as security is to the State, and Anarchy is less than preferable than the State hence Security is superior to freedom. As argued above Anarchy is the only possible situation in which pure political freedom (brute freedom) could be allowed. Hence the most comparable form would be anarchism, and any form of the state would suffice for a form of Security (although true security would have to be attained by potentially perfect system). The reason why Anarchism isn’t a good idea are plentiful. People are inherently self-interested. When left to their own devices they will seek what they want or need at the expense of others. The concept of scarcity makes the state a necessary evil. While we can appeal to Hobbes, we can also appeal to history. During the English Civil War the Levellers (anarchists), promoted chaos and caused much destruction. Unfortunately for most humans, some people demand immediate gratification of all desires. This is why many portrayals and representations of anarchistic or post-apocalyptic society are so grim. It is difficult to imagine why self-interested individuals would stop being self-interested if they had no restrictions. For these reasons I urge a Con vote. Now over to my opponent, Leprechaun, Good luck!