Overemphasizing national security may weaken the emphasis on individual freedom and equality (this view comes from "Love, Desire, and Civilization").
-
Balance between Security and Freedom: In political philosophy, the relationship between national security and individual freedom is often seen as a balance. To protect the country from internal and external threats, the government may need to take measures such as surveillance, censorship, or restrictions on freedom of assembly. When these measures become too strict or widespread, they may infringe on individual freedom and privacy.
-
Expansion of Power in Emergency Situations: In situations considered national security crises, the government may gain more power to address these crises. This may include limiting freedom of speech, controlling the media, suspending certain legal protections, etc. Although these measures may be temporary, they could become the norm, thereby affecting individual freedom in the long term.
-
Weakening of the Principle of Equality: Overemphasizing national security may also lead to unequal treatment of certain groups. For example, certain security measures may target specific ethnic, religious, or political groups, leading to unfair treatment or discrimination against members of these groups.
-
Decrease in Democratic Participation: To maintain national security, the government may restrict opportunities for the public to participate in political decision-making, such as limiting protests, assemblies, or public criticism of government policies. This may weaken key elements of the democratic system: citizen participation and open discussion.
-
Erosion of the Rule of Law: Excessive national security measures may lead to the erosion of the rule of law. Measures taken by the government for security purposes, if not subject to proper legal and judicial review, may undermine the principles of the rule of law and justice.