The emergence of laws that promise to ensure safety and security tend to effectively challenge liberalism and civil liberties. Liberal democracies emphasize the importance of rights and freedoms, although, according to the source, these freedoms can be neglected when a nation faces external danger to ensure security. The source suggests that freedoms can be suspended to preserve the collective security of the nation, and thus an overall orderly society can be achieved. Civilians trust that their nation's leader will protect their safety and security in times of emergency. The author's perspective is in line with the ideologies of philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill. Mill believed that the government should interfere when the nation's security is at risk. He believed that individuals have the freedom to pursue their own personal interests, unless doing so violates the safety of another. Thomas Hobbes believed that individuals should give up their liberties in exchange for safety and protection. The ideological perspective of the source is one that values ​​security over liberalism as the excerpt advocates strong government intervention in citizens' lives when a threat is perceived. The ideological perspective contained in this source should not be embraced, freedoms should not be denied even in times of emergency as the leader's authority is often abused. At various times in history, nations have faced external threats detrimental to their security where freedoms have been modified to accommodate changes to ensure the protection of safety and security. Often the adaptations made were intended to scapegoat or negatively influence a group of people. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay During the 1930s Adolf Hitler of the National Socialist Party of Germany embarked on his journey to gain power and authority. During this period Germany faced the threat of communist expansion and revolts against the fascist government. In response to these threats, Chancellor Hitler passed the Enabling Act of 1933 which was intended to ensure security and protection from communism. The Powers Act promised national conduct in Germany as efforts were made to arrest communists and their parliamentary delegates, this was possible as freedom of expression was rejected. The enabling law was to be implemented for only four years, then citizens would be restored to their democratic and voting rights once the threat was deemed resolved. However, Hitler did not use this act to preserve safety and security from external dangers, rather he manipulated the act to further the rise of his Nazi dictatorship. The Enabling Act dissolved all political parties other than the National Socialist Party, the Act also made all political parties illegal, it was able to do this by removing citizens' freedom to vote. The true purpose of the act was to ensure the longevity of the Nazi Party's power, while ignoring the collective security of the nation. In addition to ensuring the success of the Nazi Party, Hitler saw that the German people were in financial difficulty, thus causing civil unrest. Hitler feared that this threat would further violate national conduct and blamed individuals of the Jewish faith as responsible for the poor German economy. Through the use of the enabling law, Hitler used his power to make things become furtherscapegoating individuals of the Jewish faith, overall this led to the Holocaust. A mass genocide that predominantly targeted individuals of the Jewish faith, as well as Slavs, gypsies, communists, individuals with disabilities and many other groups. Freedoms that prohibited people from speaking out against Hitler and his cruel treatment of individuals he believed were not “full-blooded” or of the Aryan race were taken away. Safety and security for the majority of individuals in Germany was denied and replaced with the constant fear and terror of falling victim to Hitler's dictatorial regime. Trusted by many to provide widespread security, Adolf Hitler failed to protect Germany from external dangers, instead Hitler caused internal dangers for Germany by denying individuals their freedoms. Adolf Hitler forced people to abandon their civil liberties using the Enabling Act claiming it was for the safety and protection of Germany, even though this was simply not true. The collective security of the German people was not in Hitler's interests, he was only interested in creating a "purebred" Germany and restoring the nation to its former glory before the First World War, using all means necessary to realize his interests personal. Therefore, the enabling law was not used to create a national conduct implementing security, the law was used to permanently remove the rights and freedoms of German citizens, ignoring their security. On September 11, 2001, a terrorist attack took place in New York that changed the lives of many. Several people lived in constant fear that another attack would cause widespread civil unrest. To achieve broad security across America, President George W. Bush implemented the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing the Proper Tools Necessary to Intercept and Thwart Terrorism” Act; the USA PATRIOT Act. President Bush passed the law on October 26, 2001 in response to the external threat posed by the September 11 terrorist attacks. The USA PATRIOT Act was implemented to preserve the safety of American citizens against other external dangers and threats. Overall it was enacted to punish and prohibit terrorism by creating new laws and increasing punishments and sentences for crimes. To allow the USA PATRIOT Act to be implemented to its full potential, various freedoms had to be limited or limited. The law allowed various changes to the privacy of telephone and electronic communications, allowing government and other agencies access to sensitive banking and court information and immigration laws. The PATRIOT Act is regularly applied in the daily lives of citizens. American citizens trusted President George Bush to restore national conduct through the use of the law, yet the law was used to completely deny the privacy and security rights of American citizens. The American government holds extraordinary power to acquire private and sensitive information and documents without a search warrant. This power granted to government officials is often abused as discriminatory, particularly against American citizens of similar ethnic backgrounds to those involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. The law focuses on scapegoating ethical minority groups rather than ensuring that citizens' safety and security are protected, ignoring external dangers and threats that cause civil unrest. Furthermore, the law has the means to censor a large amount of information and also to censor protests against the law. The USA PATRIOT Act rejects them.