Freedom vs Security: Freedom at any cost? 

aristoteles said: "Who prefers security instead of liberty, is a justified slave" (not sure if i translated it grammatically correct)

If you're going to imagine an extreme world without laws, governance, or society, you must also imagine an extreme world where one man decides your fate. I'd personally take the freedom.

Whoa, looking cool Joker!

We don't have to choose between one and the other. But if tyrants try to force us to choose, assuming we'll choose safety under their boot, I'll choose freedom every time.

Beautiful illustration and message. Thanks for sharing

The Balance of Freedom and Security

I'm 10 seconds in -- Will I ever fail to recognize the voice of harry shearer? So distinctive. Maybe one of the most distinctive. I love you, harry shearer. And if it's not you I'll delete this.

It’s showtime!

*Insert something about Persona 5 Mementos Depths*

Well the freedom vs security argument is that both is needed and only the middle ground is needed.

Great video, love the animation too!

Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588 to 1679, so he was 30 years old when the Thirty Years' War began in 1618 and 54 years old during the English Civil War (1642-1652). Just to give historic context to his philosophy. Today, given the experience especially in the 20th century, we wouldn't arrive at the same conclusion (though this idea of security vs freedom is still very much present in our time, except that the leviathan takes the form of a dictator or otherwise autocratic ruler who offers relative economic prosperity in exchange for political inactivity).

I can't believe it can be this good

i wish there was a way to buy all the final images to put up in my room

Your content is so touching

Where can I get these posters appearing at the end?

like my parents say with everything there is a balance and I think this is no exception

Is it me or does he sound like principal Skinner

And somewhere there is a good balance of security and freedom.

What kind of Freedom is it which kills?

This is one of the easiest of false dichotomies to see through. His first contention rest that people want security and then he proposes a way to provide it but then negates the fact that if we were in a free world there would be nothing stoping anyone from coming together on a said mutual basis for the same commodity (security) and could do so without by definition giving up security by allow an entire group of people to have all the guns while at the same time holding that all people are bad and want security at the same time .

I love these videos and want some more!

It would be awesome.

I think we should start looking at this less as an "either/or" thing and more as something along a spectrum.

I’d rather freedom than safety. You can’t have safety without freedom.

Liberty is supposed to be in the middle somewhere

The art of fighting without fighting - Bruce Lee

Security is important but freedom is most.

Freedom and liberty arent the same thing

King eh? Well, I didn't vote you! How 'bout a social contract that merely commits to the non-aggression principle?

which opinion should one expect from BBC? MATE

Pretty much the difference between USA and China nowadays. In the US you have so many freedoms but you can be a victim of a mass shooting any time. In China you have an overwhelmingly powerful government with not so many personal freedoms (arguably) but the country is extremely safe

Why can't we have both security and freedom at the same time? Why why

Security at any cost freedom at any cost? Where does it compromise

I cannot fathom that even after witnessing all the horrible shit in this world, some people actually believe that if your remove all rules, people will naturally behave nicely to each other because 'reason'. Without doubt, this is the most childish, naive ideology I have ever come across. At least people who believe in magic and religion have no proof to the contrary, but even WITH rules, humans behave abominably to one another. It truly is the ideology of people who have been protected by civilisation for so long that they now have wild fantasies about what it would be like without it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but anarchism has ruled many times in history. What happened was exactly what you would expect. Not much - just violence, darkness and more violence.

Freedom please

I don't see why the narrator can't at least make a passing comical reference to Kent Brockman. Not to do so just seems weird, even hostile to the audience.

You can still have government and laws but it's simple no victim no crime. You free to do what ever you want with your own body as long as your not harming someone else.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, 🤔

Remember there is a place where every person is behind a secure fortress, where every door has to be unlocked/relocked before and after you pass and where everything is under a 24 hour surveillance, we call that place... PRISON - Freedom from security ass holes!

and then comes jean-jacques Rousseau , to solve the last one with his book the social contract

I'd rather have a adventurous life than work for greedy governments.

Smooth... Very black and white and conveniently tilted towards maintaining the status quo of Big Government... The cute drawings really make it all virtually palatable, if not downright desirable. Who needs freedom if we can be "protected", right? hmmm....

Freedom seems to mean different things to different people. I 100% support freedom for someone to pursue their dreams or live life how they wish. But there is a threshold that often does require law to maintain. Most "free" nations set that threshold at if it will have a negative impact on another's own freedom (because what people consider acceptable behavior in a free society will clash). This is why a homogeneous culture is ideal for a free nation, it keeps in-fighting to a minimum, otherwise you need the state to enforce it, at which point freedom itself starts slipping away.

Man who's willing to sacrifice freedom for security will get and deserve neither. -Benjamin Franklin

Hi folks

Freedom at any cost? YES. Freedom at ANY cost.

What is freedom of any use to me if I am the weakest and have no security at all? None...

excuse my language but havin a choice between a shit sandwich with crusts or one without isnt much of a choice if u ask me. im lost as to why if BBC4s attempt is to discuss the big life Qs such as freedom, particularly as all other human rights and civil liberties are born out of that very concept why would you reduce such a vital topic down to absolute freedom, infact pure anarchism as you illustrated it on the one extreme and on the other an all powerful state/crown that whilst they offer security at the cost of personal freedom, they can in no way guarantee increased security and will not relinquish the power they enjoy from a peoples being less free, infact theyll come for it all...they always have and still do today. (terror threats from abroad and more recently from within...loan wolf attackers= need to snoop at everybodies private personal data). the concept of freedom is about the individual, about each person capable of making meaningful decisions. what religion to follow, what views they hold, whether to communicate them. to marry have children. healthcare,education or even whether to put illegal substances into ur body. in particular it refers to the individual right to live the way u want and do whatever u want aslong as it doesnt encroach on the rights of others. this is known as the non aggression principle. you dont impose your behaviours on others by force and vice versa. a voluntarist society operating within a libertarian political and economic system.(austrian economics would replace the debt based keynesian economics that has by its very design kept a population in eternal serfdom and rendered its democracies as nothin more than banks personal atms. due to the keynsian economic model, the belief that central banks can borrow paper money beyond the realms of what the government collects in revenue, that the money supply can be inflated and circulated throughout economy, repeated over and over, with no way of being able to repay this national debt nevermind the inretest payments, nations quickly find themselves in a debt/borrow cycle now impossible to ever repay. the need to continue expanding the currency supply makes the decayed value of said money inevitable. for eg the US Fed set up in 1913, in less than 100 yrs destroyed the value of the dollar by over 90%. the role of government would be limited to carrying out set functions, predominantly the legal system and policy creation along with control of the nations money creation and wealth supply and subsequent budget requirements nationally.(this us how a nation can be debt free...ban usary all together). in addition to this due to the global nature of the world today with the net and trade agreements there would likely be a demand for a government role here too. one reigned in by predefined limits in policies like foreign policy where it is mandated by the citizenry that a non interventionist approach be adopted and the military too is governed and organised soley to defend the nation unless declared otherwise by the electorate. NO ENTANGLING ALLIANCES!!! what i have discussed here is still very basic interms of grasping the complexity of freedom within a society. the pathetic presentation u offer in ur clip is disgraceful. some may say lazy but i know better that. the open university well im hugely disappointed. recently i have become aware of the overwhelming dominance liberal ideologs have established in the social sciences and in the open university faculties. apparently in most higher ed facilities nowadays. ive known the BBC stopped being impartial a long long time ago. what has surprised me is both agancies have put their names to such an incomplete piece of work...the level of intellectual dishonesty on display here is shocking. it should call anyones academic standing into question at best.

Yep, just what we have today 👍

It'd be dog eat dog, marshall law, people are inherently good but we are programmed to survive by any means necessary!!

Hypothetically, if reincarnation was true (and death no longer a rational fear), which would you prefer? 😉

"1984 is better to live in than Mad Max, so 1984 is the best scenario"

“Humanity is finally ready to sacrifice its freedom to gain its security”

Way to misrepresent Hobbs. He wasn't talking about freedom vs security. He was talking about societal structure.

The answer is the original US Constitution.

Weirdly, my automatic "no society" assumption would be "being off the grid" and not necessarily interacting with humans at all. But c'mon, Hobbes. We WERE in a state with no government. Then, some people in some places made government. Some didn't. The government structures aren't identical, and even a country with the same government on paper can vary in how its laws actually affect society (based on area, who's enforcing the law, biases in the system...). The social contract is a valuable idea but I think we Americans have internalized this concept too much 😬 It also sounds reeeally easy to use this concept to justify colonialism, right? (And like, social darwinism and the other nasties associated with that...) I get that, at the time, the dichotomy was monarchy vs democracy, but that's already presupposing that the society in question: has a big population, able to be unified over a significant amount of space, has a common language/currency/communication systems or otherwise is able to act like a single unit, will accept a central power just throwing laws at them willy-nilly... So yeah, maybe applicable to the Western audiences he was writing for, but that's not humanity's natural state. It's so insulting. But I guess he doesn't need to hear it from me, since apparently he didn't have a GREAT time with the public and the government in general.

Im going to put a complete end to this freedom vs security debate right now!!! You know who has full and complete security??? do you hu huh huh well im going to answer that right now and the answer will end your want for security in a heart beat. PRISONERS!!!! do you want to be a prisoner!?!?! I didnt think so, "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither!"

The government does not exist to inhibit our freedoms. It exists to protect our right to live and our right property. You may not have the freedom to kill, but you also have the freedom to not be killed.

"The only way to live sensibly is without rules" - the Joker :-D

くさんありますありがとうございます」、

And that's why there's illuminati

Freedom = Security Security = Freedom

Once everyone is benevolent, rational and has good intentions to coexist is freedom okay. For now though, we humans are not that. Most of us are irrational egotistical animals who will use others as stepping Stones for our own gain as things are now.

US vs. China in a nutshell

I am free to do and say what I want. Nobody can tell me what to do. Nobody can tell me to get out of their store or home for not wearing a mask. Or a shirt. Or shoes. Nobody can tell me not to constantly utter racial or sexual slurs, or threaten violence. Nobody can tell me to wear a helmet, or drive within speed limits, or obey traffic signals, or drive within lane dividers, or drive sober, or get a license or insurance. Nobody. Or if they do, or if they arrest, or injure or kill me as a natural consequence of my exercise of freedom, they are violating my rights. Next subject: Abolish Gravity!

haha shampoo

Not a big fan of Thomas Hobbes albeit a small sample size. He certainly didn't believe that most people are inherently good. Nor did he think about how dangerous and deceitful a for profit run government could be. I'd prefer to take my chances with freedom. Hobbes can have the militarized peace officers taking orders from corporate conglomerates, and an economic system fossil fueled by war. He was not a forward thinking man nor did he have a good grip on history.

What a childish and cynical view of freedom. Sure there would be a chaotic state at the initial period of freedom. But we are social animals and we will soon begin to work together. All of this is still freedom Whoever made this gives the impression of edgy teen.

Anarchy is the only answer.

security and freedom are right wing without equality and only freedom and equality together can produce security. The libertarian left is the only school of politics with both freedom and equality in play. No equality can exist on either right and no freedom can exist on neither authoritarian. No security can exist on the libertarian right. Libertarian left is the only section which has both equality and freedom, which are a necessity in producing true security. We should take a lesson from my analysis and do politics like that.