*Disclaimer*: I’ll begin by acknowledging that this is a very brief post, and as such won’t provide the detailed, logical, and principle based arguments that I typically make in defense of my ideas. However, I want to make sure I caution people from overreacting.
As the investigation into the recent shooting in San Bernardino, CA evolves, there are initial indications that the tragedy may be connected to radical Islamic inspired terrorism. While the fear of similar events occurring is a very understandable reaction, we should not base our reaction on emotions alone. As I’ve listened to the news over the last 18 hours, I continually hear pundits and “security experts” alike calling for more efforts to increase the security of the “homeland”.
Maintaining a feeling of safety and security is an innate desire for most people. However, I fear that the proposed means of achieving this will lead to a much greater tragedy than any one attack – the elimination of personal liberty. I’ve already heard more times than I can count that we need to re-establish the NSA’s meta-data collection (i.e., spying on US citizens) program. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, but the fact remains that throughout the use of that program, no evidence was provided to show that it effectively prevented any terror attacks. I adamantly oppose the concept that individuals should lose their liberty and privacy in a largely failed attempt at preventing a future attack. That is the inherent cost of a free society; there is a greater risk that certain people may do things that we don’t want, like, or accept.
My greatest fear is that by turning over our liberties and granting the State more powers to “protect us”, we’ll actually end up less safe, and with fewer liberties to boot. It’s conceivable that we may be safer from terrorists, but are we any safer from the State? A common refrain in response to meta-data collection is, “I don’t care if the government monitors my cell phone or emails, I’m not breaking any laws”. My response: yet. Who’s to say the State won’t pass a law next week that turns you into a criminal. You’ve then granted the State the ability to easily identify you as a criminal because you “weren’t worried about being monitored”. To quote the late Paul Harvey:
“They [politicians] began telling us we don’t want opportunity, we want security. They said it so often we started to believe them. We wanted security. And they gave us chains and we were secure”
When viewing the State through the lens of a libertarian, which I clearly do, I don’t view a mass-shooting or a terrorist act as the greatest threat to my safety. Instead, I fear the deprivation of my liberty by the State, which operates as though violence against citizens is justified because of their authority granted to them by the people. (This is a topic I’ll write more on later – how does the State get its consent to govern?)
To end I want to leave you with one of my favorite quotes, which I think succinctly captures the choice we are facing:
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Benjamin Franklin