Not sure why you needed to make such an awkward rough translation when the concepts are clear, the idiom known and the sentence so short in the target language, which is the language of the author as well, thus sharing bias in its latin...

But I think this sentence is itself dangerous in its shortness, it almost makes you believe it's a discrete dichotomy rather than, as usual, a loooong gradient between two extreme, with orthogonal concerns adding to it to make it a zigzag. Better very rich in a quiet dictatorship than middle class in a chaotic old democracy, for instance. Or better poor in a clientelist theocracy than poor in an industrial dictatorship.

It doesn't really make sense in the end, since freedom and servitude are not related to danger or safety. You can have all together, at different time or degree, for different people and geographies, regarding different slice of concern (freedom is so so vague, for instance).

"Better have what you can tolerate for what you can afford, than something unaffordable or untolerable", is probably more interesting to understand the compromises real people make everyday, but I guess, so obvious we prefer to dream of a dichotomy :D

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/eve_ensler_what_security_means_to_...

malo ... quam ... ⇒ I prefer ... to ...

Preferring what to what? This is why all other words are in accusative singular as simple enumeration:

periculosam ⇒ dangerousness

libertatem ⇒ freedom

quietam ⇒ quietness

servitutem ⇒ slavery

Hence I would take his statement as: "I prefer dangerousness and freedom to quietness and slavery."