The Impossible Compromise

During Geoffrey Stone's very intriguing lecture, he mentioned how there is a continuum between freedom and safety. In other words, the more freedom a country has, the more dangerous the territory tends to be. Whereas nations with really controlling governments tend to be safer and quieter. This is because the citizens of these countries fear the government. Therefore there is a big trade-off philosophically between the possession of civil liberties and national security. While many argue that an agreement of these two viewpoints cannot be reached, I believe that the obstacle to finding national security is not personal freedom, but rather people's maturity. When people are awarded civil liberties, many do not understand the responsibility that comes with them. People are not the right forms of dissent. They would rather burn flags in violent protests than sit down talk peacefully about change. It could be argued that these people are not mature enough to deserve many of their rights. If citizens were to use their rights responsibility, the country would be able to achieve that impossible compromise. Maybe the secret to making the most out of your rights is not using them every chance you get, but knowing that you can use them at anytime and choosing not to. That, to me, is a more powerful use of civil liberties.