"Security-driven" is weak and submissive in the context of a relationship between citizen and government -- particularly on those issues discussed in the article above.
To be a parent is to be "security driven" because your responsibility for the security of your children comes before "actualization" or "self-expression" or "what's right for me."
And yet most parents today who consider themselves "responsible" and "security-driven" when it comes to their children have absolutely no qualms about sending their children off to a government institution for 6-8 hours every day where the parents: 1) have no control over the learning environment of their kids; 2) have no control over the safety of their kids; and 3) have no control over what types of people (children and adults) their kids will encounter during the course of the day.
I hate to sound elitist an cynical, but most people are absolutely NOT "security-driven" at all. If anything, most people are inherently prone to lethargy and laziness and are likely to seek the path of least resistance in all facets of life -- economic, social, political, etc.
I'm freedom-driven.
And yet most parents today who consider themselves "responsible" and "security-driven" when it comes to their children have absolutely no qualms about sending their children off to a government institution for 6-8 hours every day where the parents: 1) have no control over the learning environment of their kids; 2) have no control over the safety of their kids; and 3) have no control over what types of people (children and adults) their kids will encounter during the course of the day.
You can either work for a living or watch your kids 24-7, so what's your point ? Rich people can have tutors and governesses and nannys. Most people can't. The ability to exercise absolute control over who you come into contact with is a function of wealth. So your objection was ridiculous.