Lords: rise of CCTV is threat to freedom

[Fruitloop]

That's what they used to do in NZ, although you could leave it at the GP's surgery if you wanted to.

ETA: most people did, but I don't think they had any concerns about who would be looking at it (just the GPs really), and there wasn't the politicisation of personal details that you have in the UK now.

 

[Azrael]

In which case the NHS should hand everyone's medical records over to them, if keeping such data private is the best way of keeping it secure.

Sounds a good idea, provided there's a waiver form handy, and a law that bans you from in any way suing your GP if you loose your own paperwork.

 

[CyberRose]

Freedom and Security are not opposing forces that need to be balanced. This is a common false dichotomy perpetrated by the current administration to justify all sorts of authoritarian measures

I have to disagree with this old canard. There is no "balance" between freedom and security. Becoming less free doesn't make you safer. Just the opposite. Accepting that there's a "balance" between freedom and security accepts that increasing state power automatically makes us safer, which is bunk.

Liberty is security.

Well that's your opinions. I don't share them. "Freedom" is often a contradictory term. Should you be free to smoke in a pub or free to sit in a pub with no smoke? Supporters of both are demanding "freedom" but both positions infringe on the others' freedom.

Complete freedom would suggest the absence of any rules or laws from a "higher" power (ie the state). Altho you, and certainly anarchists, would argue that that would guarantee security (or as you say, safety), I do not share those sentiments.

What we're talking about here is crime prevention. In contemporary authoritarian states crime has been practically zero (in fact a lot of the older generation of Eastern Europe criticise capitalist "free" societies for the levels of crime they generated compared to life under the USSR). So you can't say authoritarian measures don't increase security (ie prevent crime) because that's not true. The problem with authoritarian measures is they prevent us from enjoying life or, more specifically for you, prevent political opposition.

Neither total freedom or total authoritarianism is desirable, imo, so the answer IS something in the middle and that DOES suggest that there is a balance to be struck...

 

[moon23]

In which case the NHS should hand everyone's medical records over to them, if keeping such data private is the best way of keeping it secure.

Or just not upload people's medical records onto the NHS spine system.....

I'm not saying personal ownership is always the best way to ensure privacy. For instance personal documents held by a third party in a bank vault are going to be more secure then personal documents left in the bottom of a rucksack, or accidently chucked out in the rubbish.

 

[Fruitloop]

There was actually plenty of non-political crime in Soviet Russia, with flourishing black-markets, prostitution, drug-dealing etc. There just wasn't as much western-style property crime as there is now because there wasn't the enormous disparity in wealth that exists in capitalist countries.

 

[kyser_soze]

Or just not upload people's medical records onto the NHS spine system.....

I'm not saying personal ownership is always the best way to ensure privacy. For instance personal documents held by a third party in a bank vault are going to be more secure then personal documents left in the bottom of a rucksack, or accidently chucked out in the rubbish.

So for you privacy trumps any other consideration? There are loads of clinical benefits associated with IT-based health records; everything from immunisation coverage to localised public health campaigns...

Someone mentioned Holland and CCTV..well, they've also got the system that the National Children's Register system is based on, ensuring that each child has a permanent health, education and (where necessary) social care record. Or is this still too much an egregious invasion of privacy?

Incidentally, the only thing that ever goes near the spine is a pts basic demographic data - anything relating to secondary care, GP care and hospital care are held locally by the organisation concerned (i.e. your PCT, GP or the hospital you attended). This idea that whole medical records were being uploaded to the spine is bollocks.

Or do the privacy risks outweigh both the immediate clinical benefits, and the potential for real long term, evidence based strategies for healthcare?

 

[CyberRose]

There was actually plenty of non-political crime in Soviet Russia, with flourishing black-markets, prostitution, drug-dealing etc. There just wasn't as much western-style property crime as there is now because there wasn't the enormous disparity in wealth that exists in capitalist countries.

Didn't say it was none existent, just that crime levels were nowhere near what they are now. But I'm not arguing for that kind of society, of course. I'm just pointing out that state security policies do work...

 

[moon23]

Well that's your opinions. I don't share them. "Freedom" is often a contradictory term. Should you be free to smoke in a pub or free to sit in a pub with no smoke? Supporters of both are demanding "freedom" but both positions infringe on the others' freedom.

Complete freedom would suggest the absence of any rules or laws from a "higher" power (ie the state). Altho you, and certainly anarchists, would argue that that would guarantee security (or as you say, safety), I do not share those sentiments.

What we're talking about here is crime prevention. In contemporary authoritarian states crime has been practically zero (in fact a lot of the older generation of Eastern Europe criticise capitalist "free" societies for the levels of crime they generated compared to life under the USSR). So you can't say authoritarian measures don't increase security (ie prevent crime) because that's not true. The problem with authoritarian measures is they prevent us from enjoying life or, more specifically for you, prevent political opposition.

Neither total freedom or total authoritarianism is desirable, imo, so the answer IS something in the middle and that DOES suggest that there is a balance to be struck...

You are assuming that the crime rate in the USSR Vs Capitalist Free west is to do with how authoritarian each of them are. The reality is probably far more likely to do with how equalitarian the societies were in terms of the distribution of commodities.

I don't think crime in the USA and China (both contemporary authoritarian states in terms of having the death penalty) have 0 crime rates. Please could you provide us with some reports that back up your claim that authortarian punishments reduce crime rates?

Perhaps some fascist states have low crime rates, but frankly they are just substituting a problem with individual crime for a problem with state crimes against people.

 

[Fruitloop]

Also, there are two separate ideas here that are getting tangled: freedom and privacy. Anarchists (unless they are muppets) don't support absolute freedom if it means the freedom to murder and rape. What the Lords are drawing attention to is the loss of privacy; what is happening is that instead of dealing after the fact with crimes that are either self-evident or reported by members of the public, the govt has decided to monitor everyone as much as technologically possible (which is rather a lot) on the off-chance that they might commit a crime, whilst resisting all such monitoring of state officials and state agents. That's a radical change in the relationship between citizen and state, turning society into a giant panopticon, and whe even the Lords think it's dangerous for democracy you know that it's not a gloomy prediction for the future, it is in effect something that has already happened.

 

[Azrael]

Complete freedom would suggest the absence of any rules or laws from a "higher" power (ie the state).

I didn't say "absolute freedom of action", I said liberty, which ceases to be liberty when it impinges on another person.

What we're talking about here is crime prevention. In contemporary authoritarian states crime has been practically zero […]

Not only is that a dubious claim (some say the USSR was quite dangerous outside certain areas) it completely misses the point. The danger from criminals is replaced by danger from the state. You remain insecure, but from a far more dangerous foe. Not an improvement!

Neither total freedom or total authoritarianism is desirable, imo, so the answer IS something in the middle and that DOES suggest that there is a balance to be struck...

England had the lowest crime in its history when civil liberties were at their height. (Late 19th century.) Measures like increasing detention without charge and restricting jury trial don't make us safer (the police hadn't detected the Tube bombers, for example); they make us vulnerable to state power.

Perfection isn't an option, but you can be free and quite safe, or unfree and in great danger. Try and achieve absolute safety and all you'll achieve is absolute tyranny.

 

[Fruitloop]

Didn't say it was none existent, just that crime levels were nowhere near what they are now. But I'm not arguing for that kind of society, of course. I'm just pointing out that state security policies do work...

And I'm pointing out that they didn't work. People got away with what they wanted to get away with, by and large, it's just that the stuff they got away with was of a different nature because the society as a whole was of a different nature. For example bribery and under-the-table payments for goods and services was huge, theft of state property was huge, as was black- and grey-market trading.

 

[Fruitloop]

Not only is that a dubious claim (some say the USSR was quite dangerous outside certain areas) it completely misses the point. The danger from criminals is replaced by danger from the state. You remain insecure, but from a far more dangerous foe. Not an improvement!

This is a very important point. For example, if private individuals hold you without good reason at least you can hope that the police will rescue you and the offendors will be punished, but when the state grants itself the right to hold you without due process what hope is there?

 

[Azrael]

Exactly. The power of an oppressive state far exceeds that of individuals or gangs. This screamingly obvious point is missed most of the time in our braindead "national debate" about liberty, which usually boils down to "how much freedom will the Quislings surrender this month?".

 

[CyberRose]

You are assuming that the crime rate in the USSR Vs Capitalist Free west is to do with how authoritarian each of them are. The reality is probably far more likely to do with how equalitarian the societies were in terms of the distribution of commodities.

Of course that would be an explanation, but it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive does it? And don't limit yourself to the USSR. If you want to know where I get my ideas from, try reading travel guides to places like the Middle East or Cuba. They will tell you that certain types of crime or either unheard of or are of no comparison to levels experienced in the West.

I don't think crime in the USA and China (both contemporary authoritarian states in terms of having the death penalty) have 0 crime rates. Please could you provide us with some reports that back up your claim that authortarian punishments reduce crime rates?

Please come back and stop twisting my words. Inventing an argument in your head that bears no resemblance to the one I'm making might make it easier for you to reply to, but ultimately it is doomed to failure. We're talking about CCTV here - how is that a "punishment"? And America is not an authoritarian state.

Perhaps some fascist states have low crime rates, but frankly they are just substituting a problem with individual crime for a problem with state crimes against people.

Again, I would advise you stick to what I'm actually saying and not inventing fake arguments to argue against. I am not arguing for authoritarianism, you lot are the ones that imposed the definition "authoritarian measures" on this debate, meaning ANY state security measures. Don't assume then, that any state that implements security measures is therefore authoritarian.

 

[Fruitloop]

Also on the subject of authoritarian state, I don't think there is much connection between political repression and the comparative absence of crimes against the person etc. In the USSR, the party and the secret police didn't concern themselves much with the enforcement of non-political crimes and from Kruschev onwards the legal process was no less enlightened that the west, although the labour camps that criminals were mostly sent to in lieu of prisons were definitely worth avoiding.

 

[CyberRose]

I didn't say "absolute freedom of action", I said liberty, which ceases to be liberty when it impinges on another person.

I was merely pointing out the inverse of your argument. You said that being "less free" doesn't automatically make us safer. I was pointing out that being "more free" doesn't automatically make us more safer either.

Not only is that a dubious claim (some say the USSR was quite dangerous outside certain areas) it completely misses the point. The danger from criminals is replaced by danger from the state. You remain insecure, but from a far more dangerous foe. Not an improvement!

Have I argued that it would be desirable to live in such a state?

I must have. Because you three all are arguing as if I had.

England had the lowest crime in its history when civil liberties were at their height. (Late 19th century.) Measures like increasing detention without charge and restricting jury trial don't make us safer (the police hadn't detected the Tube bombers, for example); they make us vulnerable to state power.

I honestly don't think you can argue that the late 19th century was the "height" of civil liberties when over half the population were denied the vote!!!!!!!!

Perfection isn't an option, but you can be free and quite safe, or unfree and in great danger. Try and achieve absolute safety and all you'll achieve is absolute tyranny.

Here you go again, please tell me where I've said I want to live in an authoritarian state. I know for sure that I must have with all these accusations but I must admit it's really confused me now...

 

[CyberRose]

Also on the subject of authoritarian state, I don't think there is much connection between political repression and the comparative absence of crimes against the person etc. In the USSR, the party and the secret police didn't concern themselves much with the enforcement of non-political crimes and from Kruschev onwards the legal process was no less enlightened that the west, although the labour camps that criminals were mostly sent to in lieu of prisons were definitely worth avoiding.

Political repression was never the argument, was it? The argument is about the effectiveness of what you have all defined as "authoritarian measures". The term is completely incorrect and it was foolish of me to play along because all it has achieved is give you three an excuse to shift the goal posts and divert attention away from these so-called "authoritarian measures".

The correct term would probably be "state security apparatus" and includes such tools as CCTV, the police, laws and all the other stuff as well. The argument put forward by someone was that these apparatus do not work in enhancing security. I disagreed and said when you take it to an extreme level, in an actual authoritarian state, then it has had success, albeit at the expense of creating other problems.

That's why there needs to be a balance because as you all point out, and me, despite you attempting to bizarrely portray me as arguing for an authoritarian system, nobody desires to live in such a society...

 

[Azrael]

Have I argued that it would be desirable to live in such a state?

I must have. Because you three all are arguing as if I had.

No, but you do seem to be arguing that the serfs in the USSR were secure because of an authoritarian state. If you're not, it doesn't matter if crime was lower (something I'm very dubious of) because it was replaced by something just as bad, if not worse.

Basically, you seem to be arguing that security increases with state power. If you're not, what do you mean when you say there's a balance between liberty and security?

 

[moon23]

Of course that would be an explanation, but it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive does it? And don't limit yourself to the USSR. If you want to know where I get my ideas from, try reading travel guides to places like the Middle East or Cuba. They will tell you that certain types of crime or either unheard of or are of no comparison to levels experienced in the West.


Please come back and stop twisting my words. Inventing an argument in your head that bears no resemblance to the one I'm making might make it easier for you to reply to, but ultimately it is doomed to failure. We're talking about CCTV here - how is that a "punishment"? And America is not an authoritarian state.


Again, I would advise you stick to what I'm actually saying and not inventing fake arguments to argue against. I am not arguing for authoritarianism, you lot are the ones that imposed the definition "authoritarian measures" on this debate, meaning ANY state security measures. Don't assume then, that any state that implements security measures is therefore authoritarian.

Inevitably on internet forum boards we are not always going to fully grasp what the other person is trying to express, as it’s hard to seek clarification always. So I’m sorry if you feel I have refuted points you did not make. It is certainly not my intention to launch a straw man argument.

I think it's a very complex issue when you try and compare crime in other societies. There are so many factors at play. Cuba as an example would appear to back up the notion that equal distribution of wealth reduces crime. Other factors such as TV advertising have been shown to reduce crime.

Really we would need to examine types of crime and fully consider other cultural factors before making such comparisons.

I know the USA is not a fully authoritarian society, I was talking in terms of the Death Penalty as my quantifying factor.

I don't think the UK has a much lower crime rate as a result of all our CCTV anyway, in fact I’m sure there was some evidence recently that showed it hasn’t helped cut crime. Again such analysis is tricky as perhaps crime would have increased even more within the reporting period if not for CCTV, although I’d like to see an explanation of why that might be.

 

[moon23]

Also, there are two separate ideas here that are getting tangled: freedom and privacy. Anarchists (unless they are muppets) don't support absolute freedom if it means the freedom to murder and rape. What the Lords are drawing attention to is the loss of privacy; what is happening is that instead of dealing after the fact with crimes that are either self-evident or reported by members of the public, the govt has decided to monitor everyone as much as technologically possible (which is rather a lot) on the off-chance that they might commit a crime, whilst resisting all such monitoring of state officials and state agents. That's a radical change in the relationship between citizen and state, turning society into a giant panopticon, and whe even the Lords think it's dangerous for democracy you know that it's not a gloomy prediction for the future, it is in effect something that has already happened.

I agree that this is the crux of the matter. Maybe if we as citizens could view all the communcations of our elected representaives then it would be a more equal playing fields.

 

[Azrael]

I know the USA is not a fully authoritarian society, I was talking in terms of the Death Penalty as my quantifying factor.

How is the death penalty inherently authoritarian? In the USA capital punishment can only be imposed for murder, after due process and two jury hearings. It's retribution, certainly, but cannot be deemed authoritarian.

 

[CyberRose]

No, but you do seem to be arguing that the serfs in the USSR were secure because of an authoritarian state. If you're not, it doesn't matter if crime was lower (something I'm very dubious of) because it was replaced by something just as bad, if not worse.

Basically, you seem to be arguing that security increases with state power. If you're not, what do you mean when you say there's a balance between liberty and security?

OK thank you for asking for clarification, which, as this page shows me, I desperately need to make!!!

Some people have defined CCTV, etc, as "authoritarian measures". It was also argued that these measures do not work and do not increase security. That's where I think we all went off on complete tangents because it's confusing to understand what we are arguing for or against.

I believe there are some security policies like CCTV or certain police powers (or the police themselves for that matter) help increase security. By that, I simply mean combating and preventing crime. In reply to somebody who implied these measures do not increase security (which I took to mean fighting crime) and because there had been use of the definition "authoritarian measures" to describe these policies, I gave an extreme example of authoritarian states (ie the extreme use of these policies) having a hell of a lot less crime than capitalist societies do.

But crucially I did say that that brings up other problems, as you mentioned, which means it is not desirable to live in that kind of society. In an earlier post, I also gave an extreme example of what you described as "total freedom of action" to show that that kind of society was not desirable either.

What would, imo, be a desirable society is somewhere in the middle, and that to me suggests a balance. Some security policies, such as having a police force, a court system, and some means of state surveillance is desirable to me. An excessive amount of security policies is not desirable.

Is that any more clearer from where I'm coming from?

 

[moon23]

How is the death penalty inherently authoritarian? In the USA capital punishment can only be imposed for murder, after due process and two jury hearings. It's retribution, certainly, but cannot be deemed authoritarian.

State murder is the ultimate power an authority can exert over an individual, how could capital punishment ( if we are to name it as something that masks it’s barbarity) be anything but authoritarian.

Due process means nothing, most authoritarian governments actually have an excess of due process that seeks to legitimize their actions.

It's authoritarian in so far as the death penalty acts as a deterrent to people not to break the law. The only meaningful argument against it being authoritarian is that it seeks to protect the right of the individual by deterring others from taking life. This argument is debunked in so far as it doesn’t really act as a good deterrent (countries with death penalty still having high murder rates and all).

I’m not saying it’s a perfect marker of authoritarianism, there are other examples I could choose if you liked. For instant in the US : The high prison population, State Torture, Patriot Act, prohibition of chemical substances (including historical alcohol). Although of course there are a few liberal states in the US and if you were comparing it relatively to other states it probably does not fair too badly.

 

[CyberRose]

Inevitably on internet forum boards we are not always going to fully grasp what the other person is trying to express, as it’s hard to seek clarification always. So I’m sorry if you feel I have refuted points you did not make. It is certainly not my intention to launch a straw man argument.

Thanks. I hope the post above helps explain the point I was trying to make a bit better. I still suspect we will disagree but probably need to take a step back and a deep breath!

I think it's a very complex issue when you try and compare crime in other societies. There are so many factors at play. Cuba as an example would appear to back up the notion that equal distribution of wealth reduces crime. Other factors such as TV advertising have been shown to reduce crime.

I agree completely with the above. When I first mentioned it I was actually thinking of Arab states (non-monarchies) but only mentioned Eastern Europe because of some public opinion over there. It was a route that, in hindsight, I shouldn't have taken to make my point when the point could have been made a lot easier by simply finding a case from the UK where the image of somebody on CCTV had led to an arrest! (Which, incidentally, would have been staring right in my face from the newspaper in front of me! /facepalm)

I know the USA is not a fully authoritarian society, I was talking in terms of the Death Penalty as my quantifying factor.

I think when you made the comment it kind of refers to what I was talking about above with the use of the "authoritarian measures" definition to describe security policies. When using that definition, there is the temptation to define states using those measures as authoritarian, which is where we perhaps got muddled up earlier.

I don't think the UK has a much lower crime rate as a result of all our CCTV anyway, in fact I’m sure there was some evidence recently that showed it hasn’t helped cut crime. Again such analysis is tricky as perhaps crime would have increased even more within the reporting period if not for CCTV, although I’d like to see an explanation of why that might be.

CCTV, altho there is the possibility of making people think twice before committing a crime, would mainly be used to catch criminals after the crime has been committed. So it might not help reduce crime, but it might help catch a criminal after (indeed there are countless crimes where the criminal might not have faced justice without such evidence)

 

[Azrael]

Is that any more clearer from where I'm coming from?

Thanks, yes.

My position is that there is no scale bookeneded by freedom and oppression that we have to be in the middle of. Sensible police powers, such as arrest on probable cause and search with a warrant, do not threaten liberty. Likewise, it benefits both liberty and security to have prisoners promptly charged. That's the wonderful thing about civil liberties: they make us safe and free.

CCTV is of very limited use. Around here, young hellions make a game of dodging the cameras and covering their faces. A camera can't intervene: it can only record. A beat constable limited by the law would be of far more use, and of far less threat to liberty.

The "balance" argument can only be of use to authoritarians, because it presupposes that state power doesn't come with equally negative consequences as crime.

 

[moon23]

OK thank you for asking for clarification, which, as this page shows me, I desperately need to make!!!

Some people have defined CCTV, etc, as "authoritarian measures". It was also argued that these measures do not work and do not increase security. That's where I think we all went off on complete tangents because it's confusing to understand what we are arguing for or against.

I believe there are some security policies like CCTV or certain police powers (or the police themselves for that matter) help increase security. By that, I simply mean combating and preventing crime. In reply to somebody who implied these measures do not increase security (which I took to mean fighting crime) and because there had been use of the definition "authoritarian measures" to describe these policies, I gave an extreme example of authoritarian states (ie the extreme use of these policies) having a hell of a lot less crime than capitalist societies do.

But crucially I did say that that brings up other problems, as you mentioned, which means it is not desirable to live in that kind of society. In an earlier post, I also gave an extreme example of what you described as "total freedom of action" to show that that kind of society was not desirable either.

What would, imo, be a desirable society is somewhere in the middle, and that to me suggests a balance. Some security policies, such as having a police force, a court system, and some means of state surveillance is desirable to me. An excessive amount of security policies is not desirable.

Is that any more clearer from where I'm coming from?

Yes that's a lot more clear now thanks. Personally I fall into the anarchist camp, really though because I don't think talking about a balance achieves a balance. I think state surveillance and intrusion has so seriously overstepped the mark that we urgently need to do something about it (which is why I give so much of my time to NO2ID).

Hearing Lords agree with the points I feel like I have been struggling to get across for a number of years gives me a glimmer of hope for the future.

 

[Azrael]

State murder is the ultimate power an authority can exert over an individual, how could capital punishment ( if we are to name it as something that masks it’s barbarity) be anything but authoritarian.

Due process means nothing, most authoritarian governments actually have an excess of due process that seeks to legitimize their actions.

It's authoritarian in so far as the death penalty acts as a deterrent to people not to break the law. The only meaningful argument against it being authoritarian is that it seeks to protect the right of the individual by deterring others from taking life. This argument is debunked in so far as it doesn’t really act as a good deterrent (countries with death penalty still having high murder rates and all).

I’m not saying it’s a perfect marker of authoritarianism, there are other examples I could choose if you liked. For instant in the US : The high prison population, State Torture, Patriot Act, prohibition of chemical substances (including historical alcohol). Although of course there are a few liberal states in the US and if you were comparing it relatively to other states it probably does not fair too badly.

State murder is impossible as murder is by definition a lawless act.

Webster's has authoritarian as "of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people."

This cannot possibly be used to describe a death penalty executed after due process of law and jury hearings, as the individual has not been made "completely subordinate" to the power of the state: he's been given a lawyer, Miranda warning, the right to silence, the right to confront his accusers in open court and a unanimous jury verdict. The state relies on the people to convict.

Authoritarian governments don't have due process: they have a mockery of it. Due process is the heart of civil liberty.

Deterrence isn't proved one way or the other in the USA because capital punishment is retained as tokenism. Very, very few people are actually executed, often years after they've been sentenced.

 

[moon23]

Thanks, yes.

My position is that there is no scale bookeneded by freedom and oppression that we have to be in the middle of. Sensible police powers, such as arrest on probable cause and search with a warrant, do not threaten liberty. Likewise, it benefits both liberty and security to have prisoners promptly charged. That's the wonderful thing about civil liberties: they make us safe and free.

CCTV is of very limited use. Around here, young hellions make a game of dodging the cameras and covering their faces. A camera can't intervene: it can only record. A beat constable limited by the law would be of far more use, and of far less threat to liberty.

The "balance" argument can only be of use to authoritarians, because it presupposes that state power doesn't come with equally negative consequences as crime.

Azrael I like your point about State power coming with equally negative consequences as crime. That's not to say of course that we don't want to prevent crime, just that as anti-authoritarians we don't see blanket mass-surveillance as the means to prevent crime.

 

[CyberRose]

Thanks, yes.

My position is that there is no scale bookeneded by freedom and oppression that we have to be in the middle of. Sensible police powers, such as arrest on probable cause and search with a warrant, do not threaten liberty. Likewise, it benefits both liberty and security to have prisoners promptly charged. That's the wonderful thing about civil liberties: they make us safe and free.

CCTV is of very limited use. Around here, young hellions make a game of dodging the cameras and covering their faces. A camera can't intervene: it can only record. A beat constable limited by the law would be of far more use, and of far less threat to liberty.

The "balance" argument can only be of use to authoritarians, because it presupposes that state power doesn't come with equally negative consequences as crime.

Well reading that I would say we both are in perfect agreement on everything other than our definition of "balance"!

When I say balance, I don't mean if we have 10 freedoms we must have 10 security measures! I mean exactly what you say above (more or less), but we obviously for some reason called it something different!

 

[Azrael]

Probably because I'm defining liberty in limited terms, and you're defining it in absolute terms. (Or abstract terms, if you prefer.)

So it comes down to definition. Flashback to the philosophy forum!