What is more supreme for you, individual liberty or social order?

This is serious question. please state your country as well, I really need serious answers as well. I'm doing research. thank you

Terms:
Individual liberty: free press, free expression, privacy ...etc

Social order: stability, normal traditional life, everything going normal, no such problems.

Idea: the question is whether you think that individual liberty is more important, and it's holy, you can't touch it even if it is for sake of social order. OR, do you think social oder is more important than individual liberty. for example: wath your telephone calls randomly (invading your privacy) in order to make society stable, detect crimes and terrorism more easy. limit your free press (for instance, don't talk about this, don't talk about that) in order to stop any inflamming of feelings in society.
Thank you

Social order without education, individual empowerment and individual thinking is a time bomb.

Usually and educated, critically minded population will need much less social or legal support to create social cohesion. Common sense will drive debates and dialogue and communications will prevail. When the instances are not doing their jobs such as not protecting individual rights over lobbyist or politically or social and religious agenda, then chaos sets in.

People who do not know how to communicate, that havent leran how to think and take responsibility can then take over the common space and reat chaos.

Social Order tends to hide real issues. It eliminates nuances along with an indivudual sense of accontability and responsibility and creativity. Social Order only comes with education and a culture of acceptance of diversity. If social order is imposed without any educations and self empowering programs or legislature, it is only a time bomb.

The benefit of the many or the one? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

I would base my choice on what I see all to much around me....conformity

Answer: Social order

Social order.....live in Texas.....born in WA....raised in CA....and Desert Storm veteran.

Social order......period. I want a little normalacy..for now anyway.

I don't see it so much as an either or thing, but rather a delicate balance. Overall, I tend to lean more towards civil liberties. I don't want the government listening in on my phone calls or checking my library books without a warrent, even though I have nothing to hide. I don't like the idea of not being able to go where I want, when I want. It annoyed the heck out of me that my city imposed a curfew for kids 17 and under yesterday (Mardi Gras), even though I'm 19 and wasn't going out anyway.

But I can still appreciate that we do have to sacfice some liberties for the sake of social order and safety. I'm definetly in favor of gun control, and there is a limit to the degree of disobediance and "bad" behavior I think should be tolerated. I think it's reasonable to limit noise at night (like when the cops go break up loud parties), and to impose rules for motor traffic on pulic roads. I value free speech, especially on political matters, but I think that a lot of slander and libel, as well as some forms of threatening or ensighting violence do need to be restricted.

The point is that I don't consider either one supreme and all important. I value individual liberties, but I also realize there needs to be some limits on them to have a functional society.

Oh, and for your research thing, I'm from the US.

Social order because people cant be trusted to do the right thing. But then again the leaders can't be trusted to do the right thing so it's all impossible anyway social order and personal freedom but social order would be nice if it was possible

If social order prevents individual liberty it's bad. It's comunism it's dictature. I'm from Romania.