You're manufacturing a meaning that isn't actually there.
A nation protecting its citizens has absolutely nothing to do with creating a police state or obliterating freedom. It would be absurd to claim the opposite: no nation can ever protect its people, because to do so is to destroy freedom.
It is absolutely the first responsibility of any nation to keep its people safe (notice I did not say create a police state, or spy on everybody, or violate the constitution). If you can't do that as a government, then you have no reason to exist.
I think the root of your error is in confusing what a modern politician might mean with the word "security," and what classic liberalism would say when it comes to the responsibility of a nation to ensure the freedom of its people (eg to ensure that they are safe from physical assault both by domestic enemies such as gangs or militias, or by foreign military invasion). You assume when I say security, that I mean Obama's (or Bush's) equivalent framing.
A nation protecting its citizens has absolutely nothing to do with creating a police state or obliterating freedom. It would be absurd to claim the opposite: no nation can ever protect its people, because to do so is to destroy freedom.
It is absolutely the first responsibility of any nation to keep its people safe (notice I did not say create a police state, or spy on everybody, or violate the constitution). If you can't do that as a government, then you have no reason to exist.
I think the root of your error is in confusing what a modern politician might mean with the word "security," and what classic liberalism would say when it comes to the responsibility of a nation to ensure the freedom of its people (eg to ensure that they are safe from physical assault both by domestic enemies such as gangs or militias, or by foreign military invasion). You assume when I say security, that I mean Obama's (or Bush's) equivalent framing.