From Giorgia Agamben, his thoughts on Security and Terror:
Security as leading principle of state politics dates back to the
the birth of the modern state. Hobbes already mentions it as the
opposite of fear, which compels human beings to come together within a
society. But not until the 18th century does a thought of security come
into its own. In a 1978 lecture at the Collége de France (which has yet
to be published) Michel Foucault has shown how the political and
economic practice of the Physiocrats opposes security to discipline and
the law as instruments of governance.
Turgot and Quesnay as well as Physiocratic officials were not
primarily concerned with the prevention of hunger or the regulation of
production, but wanted to allow for their development to then regulate
and "secure" their consequences. While disciplinary power isolates and
closes off territories, measures of security lead to an opening and to
globalization; while the law wants to prevent and regulate, security
intervenes in ongoing processes to direct them.In short, discipline
wants to produce order, security wants to regulate disorder. Since
measures of security can only function within a context of freedom of
traffic, trade, and individual initiative, Foucault can show that the
development of security accompanies the ideas of liberalism.
Today we face extreme and most dangerous developments in the thought
of security. In the course of a gradual neutralization of politics and
the progressive surrender of traditional tasks of the state, security
becomes the basic principle of state activity. What used to be one
among several definitive measures of public administration until the
first half of the twentieth century, now becomes the sole criterium of
political legitimation. The thought of security bears within it an
essential risk. A state which has security as its sole task and source
of legitimacy is a fragile organism; it can always be provoked by
terrorism to become itself terroristic.