Of the ten people who voted in this poll,
6 - would prefer living peacefully in a despotic regime while
4 - would prefer living freely, but subject to the occasional war.
This was the choice laid out in Federalist and Anti-Federalist #6. Hamilton argued that life without the Constitution would be subject to "frequent and violent contests" between the resulting confederacies, while Centinel prefers anarchy--and presumably its consequences--to the absolute power contained in the new Constitution. So assuming each argument contains a grain of truth, which option would a rational person choose, assuming that this is a rational choice at all.
It's a fair dilemma, and perhaps one we are not able to understand fully not being subject to a tyrannical government (unless we are so conditioned to a tyrannical order that we do not even recognize it as being one), but it is probably indicative of the American spirit that collectively we narrowly opt for violent unstable freedom when given a choice.
Now it might be useful to apply this abstract consideration to contemporary concrete examples of the dilemma. The seemingly arbitrary surveillance of cell phone conversations, or willingness to suspend civil liberties in general in order to root out terrorist plots--or suspected plots--is a good contemporary example. Think about this next time you have to take your shoes off before you board a plane.
It is worth considering what and how many liberties people would be willing to give up in order to ensure complete security from terrorist attack.
Benjamin Franklin allegedly stated "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But it is useful to remind everyone that the very act of living in an orderly society under a system of law and order necessitates a reduction of individual liberty. The only question is which liberties and how much they should be curtailed and how.
Hence the dilemma.
