Security: to be or not to be?

Question: Because of the ambiguity of the term "security," can any country ever be fully secure?

Answer: No. We all saw in class today what a struggle it was for us to explain security. Since we can’t even define the meaning of the word due to its ambiguity, there is no way a country could possibly reach this unattainable goal or know if it was fully secure.

Security is only a mindset. For example, even though you may feel safer riding in a car than flying in an airplane, we all know driving has been statistically proven to be more dangerous than flying. This shows that the perception of security is often inaccurate. Even if we think that we are fully secure in a car because it is a common, reliable mode of transportation, there is always a huge threat of an accident that will keep us from being fully secure.

Let’s say that there was some incredible way to make a country fully secure (hypothetically speaking, of course, since there is no way as of now). Would you want to live in this fully secure world? Would you mind giving up your own freedoms for the overall security of the nation? That is what would happen if the government implemented its highest security programs. It would probably look something like you see in A Beautiful Mind with Russell Crowe… chips implanted under the skin of your forearm that can track everything you do. Or maybe the government would have to invest in some “precogs” that predict crime like seen in the film Minority Report. At any rate, prioritizing security above personal liberty is dangerous and I’m sure most people would resist this even if it means fuller security for the country. Is full security really worth the watching eye of big brother?