Neocleous explains that in contemporary political discourse, liberty and security are treated as though they are at odds with one another.

a zero-sum game is where two sides are at odds with one another, and taking from one side would give equally to the other. a crude way of thinking about this would be to say that if there is a balance of liberty and security, each would have half the weighting, an equal priority of the state and citizenry granted to each. so it would be a 50/50 split. a zero-sum game would mean that taking from one side gives to the other, and neocleous suggests that liberty and security are treated in contemporary western societies as though they are locked in a zero-sum game. want more security? then you have to take away from liberty in equal share. you have to give up some freedom to gain security.

question: what does neocleous think about this? what are your thoughts about his main