The source reflects a perspective that supports illiberalism. He suggests that the government must protect its citizens in times of crisis, but states that in times of stability people will be free from unnecessary government intervention. However, it does not suggest that people should be free from unnecessary government intervention in times of crisis. The illiberal view that opposes the principles of liberalism suggests that governments should resort to unnecessary interventions in times of crisis and so does the source (indirectly as mentioned above). But who can confirm that the government will only intervene and suspend civil liberties in times of crisis? The source would prefer security over freedom because it suggests that in times of crisis, the government should protect its citizens by taking “decisive action.” This decisive action suggests that the government will not consult people in making decisions and will instead make them itself. This secrecy on the part of the government prevents the people from holding the government accountable. We should not embrace the source because fully embracing it would lead to a society where civil liberties are compromised, where government has too much power, and where democracy is crumbling. The War Measures Act is an example of an illiberal act that the source would support. . This act allows the government to limit rights and freedoms in times of emergency in order to protect society from harm. The source would agree with this because he says that “in times of crisis” the government must protect its citizens. But there are problems with this act; it allows the government to decide when to implement it and when to phase it out. This kicks off...the center of the card......I laughed. Illiberalism also suggests this because it supports the idea of ​​moving away from liberal ideas. It argues for the absence of rights and freedoms, private property and the rule of law, as the source would indirectly do. The source agrees with government intervention in the crisis, but allowing the government to fully intercede would allow them to overstep the laws (taking away rights and freedoms), inevitably breaking the rule of law. He would support the patriotic act because it protects society from crisis, but the patriotic act allows for the confiscation of property and the suspension of rights and freedoms. By embracing the source, we would embrace a society where the government can take away our rights and use its power to accomplish its own selfish means. Because of the negative consequences that arise from ideas at the source, society should not embrace them.