Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
The principle should be underlying and the argument that there is no overriding circumstance should be overlying.
What difference does it make which order we place them?

But I think it's a mistake to look at it in terms of overriding circumstances in the first place. We are balancing two very important things, not finding miscellaneous exceptions to one important thing.
But it comes down to circumstances no matter which path you take. If you decide on a case by case basis you either begin with the facts of the situation and you work from those to reach some sort of "big statement" that essentially is your justification for how these facts should play out. Or you do it the other way around an you start with the big statement and then dictate how these facts fit into it.

When you frame it as a balancing act, you are implying that the two things which need balancing are:

A. Able to be quantified and given an exchange ratio. How many security points is this in exchange for a few less freedom points due to restricting such drawings?
B. That the two things that are being balanced are inherently opposed in each other. Namely freedom vs security. When it is not always so.

To me it seems as if your view is the more black and white one, and thus is less suitable to adequately make judgments of reality off of.