A good philosopher in my college said the important thing to remember about moral relativism is that you're supposed to respect the views of others but this doesn't mean they're inherently valuable as your own views still have to be weighed against them. Or, in other words, "Everyone has an opinion on morality but the only one you're responsible for is your own."
In fact, the argument of freedom vs. security is one I did a half-completed essay on using the Assassins vs. Templars.
Basically, the gist of it being, "Freedom and Security aren't opponents but one is a necessity of the other." The man having freedom to express his opinions is a result of having the security to not starve to death or be killed for doing so.
In the discussion of the "Freedom vs. Security" argument, I think the Legion is something of a nonstarter. It doesn't provide much security because it is a military oligarchy where there's no reason to really join up unless you're a male human warrior. I think a better argument for freedom vs. security is House vs. NCR vs. Independent Vegas.
Who would YOU want to live under?
House offers absolute protection and security of a benevolent god king who will provide stability but demands subservience in return. Ironically, his security is also a freedom as he requires nothing in the way of restrictions from his followers but "do not get in my way." As he said, no problems with being gay or Christian or atheist but you need to probably be employed as well as rich. As we see with the locals, though, their freedom was impinged to fit House's view of 50s Vegas.
NCR offers a median between it and independence.
Independence offers total freedom but no security outside of New Vegas.
