this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
25 points (93.1% liked)

Asklemmy

46663 readers
938 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It seems that whenever you look for one, you lose the other. If you seek labor freedom, you lose economic security, and vice versa. States "promise" more security in exchange for citizen freedom. It is very difficult for me to find an instance in life in which security and freedom can fully and frictionlessly coexist.

Is it just me or is that how it goes?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I wouldn't make a direct connection between the two. Let's ask "security from what?"

Security from warfare doesn't need to limit individual freedom, perhaps it just requires a certain part of people and economic activity to engage in military activity, production, and research.

Security from poverty increases individual freedom. If the government helps those who lost their job, then you don't need to rely on having a job to survive, only to improve your economic status and living standards.

Security from crime is possibly more tricky. Less control you apply on a population, more likely it is for them to do crime. Although fighting poverty does help prevent much of that crime, especially organized crime.

But maybe you meant more on an individual level, than a system level. In that case sure, being an employee is probably the most secure option, although that's only true if the job contract limits firing. Aspiring to a better job, perhaps moving to a country or state with better worker rights, increases both security and freedom. For example, as an Italian I earn X and if I decide to have children I'd have huge costs and issues with parental leaves. If I moved to Sweden, not only I would have about a 30% increase in salary, but as a parent I would receive much more help, both for leaves and for free nursery and such (if I'm not mistaken). Plus I would cut costs in cars, as I wouldn't need one. So, higher security (I can save more money) and higher freedom (more free time).