Philosophical Debates- Is Security a Right or a Responsibility?

The question of whether security is a right or a responsibility is more than a matter of semantics, as it shapes laws, policies, and the expectations of entire societies. This debate goes to the heart of how we view the relationship between the individual and the state, and whether safety is something to be guaranteed by authority or cultivated by personal agency.

The idea of security as a right flows from the belief that all individuals, by virtue of being human, deserve protection from violence and disorder. This perspective treats security as a guarantee like liberty or justice, and it places the burden of delivery squarely on the state. Under this view, citizens are entitled to policing, surveillance, and intervention, regardless of their own conduct or preparation.

The attraction of this approach is obvious.  It promises safety for all, even the unprepared or negligent. Yet history shows that when rights are framed without corresponding duties, they tend to expand beyond their original intent. A right to security easily morphs into a demand for protection from all discomforts or inconveniences. This, in turn, justifies intrusive state control, eroding the very freedoms security is meant to safeguard. Contemporary example are continually expanding, as the virtuous call for protection has led to some of the planets worst atrocities and changing borders.

The alternative view holds that security begins with the individual. In this framework, each person is responsible for safeguarding their home, family, and community before appealing to the state. The government’s role is not to provide cradle-to-grave protection but to create conditions where individuals can defend themselves effectively.

This approach aligns with deterrence theory and the practical realities of crime prevention. A society of prepared individuals, who lock doors, assess risks, and take responsibility for their own defence, presents fewer opportunities for predators. Security becomes not a passive entitlement but an active discipline.

The divide between right and responsibility is not purely philosophical. It carries measurable consequences. Nations that treat security as a collective entitlement centralise authority, expanding surveillance and limiting individual freedoms under the banner of “protection.” Conversely, societies that treat security as an individual responsibility tend to experience higher levels of personal preparedness but face accusations of inequality and discrimination when outcomes vary.

Statistical evidence reinforces this tension. Areas where responsibility is diluted by heavy dependence on state protection show substantially higher crime rates, with offenders emboldened by weak consequences. In contrast, communities with strong norms of self-reliance demonstrate lower levels of violent victimization, as predators face higher risks and fewer easy targets.

The most realistic answer lies in synthesis. Security is both a right and a responsibility. The state has a duty to provide a baseline of order, defence against external threats, a functioning justice system, and deterrence of crime. It claims taxes for these efforts. But this baseline does not absolve individuals of responsibility. Citizens must recognise that their own actions, vigilance, and preparedness are the first and most reliable lines of defence.

When Authoritarian action or economic mismanagement and over-taxation occur, those individuals must be willing to defend themselves and even overthrow the state. The historical precedents of democide killing over 100,000,000 million in the last century alone.

The framing of security matters because it dictates behaviour. If citizens believe safety is only a right, they wait for others to act. If they see it as a responsibility, they act first and expect the state to support, not substitute, their efforts. The choice between these perspectives defines not just security policy but the character of a nation.

I was brought up with the belief that my personal security was my responsibility. I have debated and entered into discourse with several teachers that attempted to indoctrinate my children to think that security was a right. They observed during 2020 that my assertions were correct in practice, and the alternative was evil and murderous. Iatrogenesis killing well over 200,000 Australian souls by mid-2025.  In practical terms however, those that take responsibility for their own actions and security, can live and trade with the others, however, in practice those that believe security is a right, justify violence, destruction and death, to impose their own malevolent will and world-view on others.

From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security and Risk Consultant with 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. Sam has trained over 1,000 entry level security personnel, taught defensive tactics, weapons training and handcuffs to policing personnel and the public. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organisations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.