A criticism of liberalism: Liberalism sacrifices too much liberty for security

CONTEXT

These comments led to this post:

Me: Does liberalism necessarily sacrifice too much liberty in return for security? I don't think so. Liberty and security are compatible. But, that's just my opinion.  

Commenter: Benjamin Franklin who said something to the effect of “Those who would trade liberty for security will have and deserve neither.” Maybe Thomas Jefferson.

Me: Excellent point. That's very interesting. We need to know, if possible, what Franklin or Jefferson had in mind with a reasonable degree of accuracy. What I have in mind probably overlaps some but likely isn't mostly the same. I would need to do some research.  Tell you what, this is the first time that I can recall this point being brought up like you did. It's quite interesting to me, so I'll do a post on just this to explore it.

BLOG POST

If one sets up questions to AI properly, giving wording of the question careful thought, one can usually get reasonably good, on-point answers. Perplexity:

Q1: Ben Franklin allegedly said something like this: “Those who would trade liberty for security will have and deserve neither.” That was part of a criticism of Democrats and liberalism that alleges that liberalism necessarily sacrifices too much liberty in return for security. I am unsure what “security” the criticism refers to, maybe mostly liberals “defunding the police” and/or being soft on crime. In general, I believe the criticism refers mostly to liberal support for allegedly intrusive, authoritarian, threatening and/or oppressive policies such as same-sex marriage, DEI initiatives, support for the BLM movement, defunding the police, persecution of Christians, high taxation, high federal debt, high inflation, aggressive wokeness, support for LGBQT and racial minority rights, open borders, illegal immigration and so forth. How much truth is there in the allegation that liberals are trading liberty for security, (1) at least in the sense that Franklin intended, and (2) in any other reasonably asserted sense regardless of what Franklin said? 

A1: The criticism you've described misinterprets Benjamin Franklin's famous quote and misapplies it to modern political issues. Let's examine this in two parts:

1. Franklin's Intended Meaning

The quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" is often misunderstood and taken out of context1 2. Franklin was not actually warning against trading liberty for security in the way it's commonly interpreted today.In fact, Franklin meant almost the opposite of how the quote is typically used. He was advocating for the ability of a government to govern in the interests of collective security 1. The "liberty" in question was the right of self-governance, and the "security" was not personal safety but financial security for the community 2.

2. Modern Application

Regarding the modern application of this concept to liberal policies, the criticism you've described appears to conflate several distinct issues and mischaracterizes many liberal positions.

Civil Liberties and Security

Civil liberties are constitutionally protected freedoms that act as restraints on how the government can treat its citizens 4. Many of the policies mentioned in the criticism (same-sex marriage, DEI initiatives, LGBTQ+ rights) are actually expansions of civil liberties rather than restrictions. 

Police Reform and Public Safety

The "defund the police" movement, despite its provocative name, is generally about reallocating resources to address root causes of crime and social issues, not about reducing public safety 3. Many advocates argue this approach could enhance both liberty and security by addressing systemic issues.

Economic Policies

Issues like taxation, federal debt, and inflation are complex economic matters that don't directly relate to the liberty-security trade-off in the way the criticism suggests.

Immigration and Border Policies

These are complex issues that involve balancing various factors, including economic needs, humanitarian concerns, and national security. It's an oversimplification to frame them solely as a liberty-security trade-off.

Conclusion

The criticism misapplies Franklin's quote and oversimplifies complex political issues. Many liberal policies aim to expand civil liberties and address systemic issues, rather than trading liberty for security. While there are always debates about the proper balance between government action and individual freedom, it's inaccurate to characterize liberal policies as universally sacrificing liberty for security.

In any democratic society, there will always be tensions between different rights and values. The key is to find a balance that respects constitutional protections while addressing societal needs. This requires nuanced discussion and policy-making, rather than relying on oversimplified slogans or misapplied historical quotes.

The fear

Q2: How do different political ideologies interpret the balance between liberty and security?

A2: Different political ideologies interpret the balance between liberty and security in varying ways, reflecting their core values and priorities. Here's an overview of how some major ideologies approach this balance:

Liberalism

Liberalism generally emphasizes individual liberty while recognizing the need for security. However, the interpretation can vary:

Classical Liberalism: Tends to prioritize individual liberty over security, viewing government intervention as a potential threat to freedom. It advocates for minimal state involvement in personal and economic affairs 1. 

Modern Liberalism: Often seeks a balance between liberty and security, recognizing that some restrictions on liberty may be necessary to ensure collective security. However, it remains wary of excessive government power 2.

Conservatism

Conservative ideologies often place a higher emphasis on security and social order:

Traditional Conservatism: Generally favors strong national security measures and law enforcement, sometimes at the expense of individual liberties 2.

Libertarian Conservatism: Closer to classical liberalism, it prioritizes individual liberty and is skeptical of government expansion, even for security purposes.

Authoritarianism

Authoritarian ideologies typically prioritize security and social order over individual liberties:

Far-right Authoritarianism: Often advocates for strong security measures, even at the significant cost of personal freedoms, particularly for minority groups 3. 

Left-wing Authoritarianism: While emphasizing economic security, it may also restrict personal liberties in the name of collective well-being.

Social Democracy

Social democratic ideologies attempt to strike a balance:

Advocates for strong social safety nets to provide economic security. Generally supports civil liberties but may accept some restrictions for the sake of collective security 4.

Libertarianism

Libertarian ideology strongly favors liberty over security:

Advocates for minimal government intervention in both personal and economic spheres. Views most security measures implemented by the state as infringements on personal freedom.

Pragmatic Approaches

Many modern democratic governments adopt a pragmatic approach:

Attempt to balance liberty and security based on specific contexts and threats. Use frameworks like the "harm principle" to determine when restrictions on liberty are justified 1. 

In practice, the balance between liberty and security is often context-dependent and can shift based on perceived threats or societal changes. The challenge for any political system is to find an equilibrium that provides adequate security without unduly compromising essential liberties 5.

In view of the foregoing information, I do not believe that liberalism unreasonably sacrifices liberty for security. The pragmatic approaches are personally most appealing, maybe because I am a pragmatic rationalist.

Q: Do you believe that liberalism sacrifices too much liberty for security?