A question to reflect on is what we are optimising for?
If the first answer to this question is security, then the next question is, what type of security do we mean? To name a few: commercial, defence, digital/ cyber, free speech, governance, individual, infrastructure, national, money/ funds/ cash, personal or sovereignty security? Personal security represents a group of people who will agree to want the same vs. individual security, which is unique to you.
What is evident is when these types of security are plotted on peak paradox is that they are all optimising for different things, which means if we optimise for one, we cannot deliver the optimal for something else. There has to be a compromise.
Governance Security, the who decides: who decides, who polices the police, who sets policy and regulation, lives at peak paradox as it needs to try and work out how to optimise for all possible security issues - many of which are in conflict.
For example, the paradox of free speech lies in its delicate balance between safeguarding individual liberty and protecting the common good. On one hand, free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, fostering the exchange of ideas, diverse perspectives, and open discourse. It empowers individuals to challenge authority, voice dissent, and advocate for change, making it a fundamental human right.
However, this freedom isn't absolute. The paradox arises when free speech is weaponised to spread disinformation, hatred, support prejudice, or incite violence. Striking the balance between allowing diverse opinions and preventing harm is challenging. Determining harm is itself complex. All societies grapple with how to deliver free speech, as navigating the paradoxes of free speech requires thoughtful and respectful deliberation. It demands fostering a culture that values critical thinking, media literacy, and constructive dialogue. Peak Paradox reminds us that while free speech is essential, it also demands vigilance to protect the principles of equality, justice, and social harmony that underpin society and that democracy (majority voting) does not always find that balance.
Is this why our security policies and rules deliver the worst of everything? We should frame simple or single ideals as a security theatre, as is a way to disguise the complexity of paradoxes created as we cannot agree on what we are optimising for.
Thank you Yael for the prompt.