Security and Freedom are not entirely incompatible. A democratic free society can offer 
security for its citizens. But to some extent, there are trade-offs. All government has a natural tendency to seek more power over its citizens, and more knowledge of their actions and lives, because it makes government tasks easier. There is also an increase in security, when government is more intrusive and more powerful. Some citizens will be criminals; some citizens (or visitors) will commit grave crimes, even including terrorism. Government more easily counters these threats when its citizens have fewer freedoms, or more restrictions on their freedoms. So, unfortunately, even when a government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, it retains a tendency to want fewer freedoms for its people and more power over them.
What we the people, the voters who are responsible for whomever we put in office, what we must realize is that security must be balanced against freedoms. If we put excessive emphasis on doing everything that we can to be more secure, we will be less free.
One example is found in the right to keep and bear arms. Government has a tendency to disarm its citizens, or at least to restrict as much as possible their gun rights, because government has a tendency to seek to accumulate power. An armed citizenry has power, that government would like to reserve to itself. When guns are more easily available, it is easier for criminals to obtain guns. The argument for disarming the nation is one of security. But the counter argument is more compelling. Citizens can better defend themselves if they are able to keep and bear arms. And so the right to self-defense and the consequent right to own and use firearms are freedoms which a democratic free society must not take from its citizens. Security must not be used as an excuse to take away freedoms.
Another example is found in the excessive intrusion of government into private life. The NSA does extensive spying on its citizens, using computer and telecommunications technology. Here again is a similar trade-off between security and freedoms. The excuse for this intrusion is greater security. But the problem is that citizens are less free in their communications: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”. And yet it is violated on a daily basis. Freedom is reduced on the excuse that it makes us more secure.
The same is true for the “stop and frisk” policy of the NYPD. Over 5 million times, New York police officers stopped citizens, frisked and questioned them, without probable cause or a warrant: NYCLU: stop and frisk data. The reason for this policy is greater security. The argument against it: our right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Too often today, our society is willing to trade away our freedoms for greater security. I say that a truly free democratic society must accept that a free society includes some inherent dangers. Live free or die.
- Thoreau
I live in a democratic country. Here, there are rallies almost everyday… different people, different fights. The “freedom of speech” is being abused here. Up to this point, I still doubt if “democracy” is what this country really needs. We were under a parliament government once, and it didn’t turn out well. Good thing I wasn’t born yet during those times. Many innocent lives were tortured and killed.