I have often wondered why Karl Popper ended the dramatic peroration of the first volume of his Open Society and Its Enemies with the sentence: "We must go on into the unknown, the uncertain and insecure, using what reason we have to plan for both security and freedom." Is not freedom enough? Why put security on the same level as that supreme value?
Then one remembers that Popper was writing in the final years of World War II. Looking around the world in 2004, you begin to understand Popper's motive: Freedom always means living with risk, but without security, risk means only threats, not opportunities.
Examples abound. Things in Iraq may not be as bad as the daily news of bomb attacks make events there sound; but it is clear that there will be no lasting progress towards a liberal order in that country without basic security. Afghanistan's story is even more complex, though the same is true there. But who provides security, and how?
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
In Europe and the West, there is the string of terrorist acts -- from those on the US in 2001 to the pre-election bombings in Madrid -- to think about. London's mayor and police chief have jointly warned that terrorist attacks in the city are "inevitable." Almost every day there are new warnings, with heavily armed policemen in the streets, concrete barriers appearing in front of embassies and public buildings, stricter controls at airports and elsewhere -- each a daily reminder of the insecurity that surrounds us.
Nor is it only bombs that add to life's general uncertainties. Gradually, awareness is setting in that global warming is not just a gloom and doom fantasy. Social changes add to such insecurities. All at once we seem to hear two demographic time-bombs ticking: The continuing population explosion in parts of the third world, and the astonishing rate of aging in the first world. What will this mean for social policy? How will mass migration affect countries' cultural heritage?
There is also a widespread sense of economic insecurity. No sooner is an upturn announced than it falters. At any rate, employment seems to have become decoupled from growth. Millions worry about their jobs -- and thus the quality of their lives -- in addition to fearing for their personal security.
Such examples serve to show that the most disquieting aspect of today's insecurity may well be the diversity of its sources, and that there are no clear explanations and simple solutions. Even a formula like "war on terror" simplifies a more complex phenomenon.
So what should we do? Perhaps we should look at Popper again and remember his advice: To use what reason we have to tackle our insecurities.
In many cases this requires drastic measures, particularly insofar as our physical security is concerned. But while it is hard to deny that such measures are necessary, it is no less necessary to remember the other half of the phrase: "Security and freedom."
Checks on security measures that curtail the freedoms that give our lives dignity are as imperative as protection. Such checks can take many forms. One is to make all such measures temporary by giving these new laws and regulations "sunset clauses" that limit their duration. Security must not become a pretext for the suspending and destroying the liberal order.
A second requirement is that we look ahead more effectively. It is not necessary for us to wait for great catastrophes to occur if we can see them coming. Holland does not have to sink into the North Sea before we do something about the world's climate; pensions do not have to decline to near-zero before social policies are adjusted.
A third need is to preserve, and in many cases to recreate, what one might call islands of security. Globalization must become "glocalization": There is value in the relative certainties of local communities, small companies, human associations. Such islands are not sheltered and protected spaces, but models for others. They prove that up to a point security can be provided without loss of freedom.
There remains the most fundamental issue of attitude. It is debatable whether governments should ever frighten their citizens by painting the horror scenario of "inevitable" attack. The truth -- to quote Popper again -- is that "we must go on into the unknown, the uncertain and insecure," come what may.
Today's instabilities may be unusually varied and severe, but human life is one of ceaseless uncertainty at all times. Such uncertainty can lead to a frozen state of near-entropy. More frequently, uncertainty leads to someone claiming to know how to eliminate it -- frequently through arbitrary powers that benefit but a few.
False gods have always profited from a widespread sense of insecurity. Against them, an active effort to tackle the risks around us is the only answer. Perhaps we need a new Enlightenment to spread the confidence we need to live with insecurity in freedom.
Ralf Dahrendorf, author of numerous acclaimed books and a former European commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London School of Economics and a former warden of St. Antony's College, Oxford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmaker Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on Saturday won the party’s chairperson election with 65,122 votes, or 50.15 percent of the votes, becoming the second woman in the seat and the first to have switched allegiance from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to the KMT. Cheng, running for the top KMT position for the first time, had been termed a “dark horse,” while the biggest contender was former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), considered by many to represent the party’s establishment elite. Hau also has substantial experience in government and in the KMT. Cheng joined the Wild Lily Student
Taipei stands as one of the safest capital cities the world. Taiwan has exceptionally low crime rates — lower than many European nations — and is one of Asia’s leading democracies, respected for its rule of law and commitment to human rights. It is among the few Asian countries to have given legal effect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant of Social Economic and Cultural Rights. Yet Taiwan continues to uphold the death penalty. This year, the government has taken a number of regressive steps: Executions have resumed, proposals for harsher prison sentences
RSS