It seems that whenever you look for one, you lose the other. If you seek labor freedom, you lose economic security, and vice versa. States “promise” more security in exchange for citizen freedom. It is very difficult for me to find an instance in life in which security and freedom can fully and frictionlessly coexist.
Is it just me or is that how it goes?
I wouldn’t make a direct connection between the two. Let’s ask “security from what?”
Security from warfare doesn’t need to limit individual freedom, perhaps it just requires a certain part of people and economic activity to engage in military activity, production, and research.
Security from poverty increases individual freedom. If the government helps those who lost their job, then you don’t need to rely on having a job to survive, only to improve your economic status and living standards.
Security from crime is possibly more tricky. Less control you apply on a population, more likely it is for them to do crime. Although fighting poverty does help prevent much of that crime, especially organized crime.
But maybe you meant more on an individual level, than a system level. In that case sure, being an employee is probably the most secure option, although that’s only true if the job contract limits firing. Aspiring to a better job, perhaps moving to a country or state with better worker rights, increases both security and freedom. For example, as an Italian I earn X and if I decide to have children I’d have huge costs and issues with parental leaves. If I moved to Sweden, not only I would have about a 30% increase in salary, but as a parent I would receive much more help, both for leaves and for free nursery and such (if I’m not mistaken). Plus I would cut costs in cars, as I wouldn’t need one. So, higher security (I can save more money) and higher freedom (more free time).