Attaining Both Security and Liberty
A reader of this LRC article asked me for some examples. I wrote back that the argument we are concerned to counter is as follows:
Major premise: Giving up liberties is sufficient to gain security, necessary to gain security, or both.
Minor premise: We want to attain greater security.
Therefore, We must give up some of our liberties.
1) Now how about the situation in prisons? You have few freedoms there, yet you are at much greater risk of being killed or raped or beaten up or, worse (for your soul), yourself killing, raping, or beating up others than in civil society.
Or what of airplane security? You are hardly allowed to go to the bathroom on airplanes, yet any SOB with a box cutter can steer the airplane towards the Empire State Building and cause another catastrophe.
Or consider the absurdity of being George W. Bush. He runs (poorly) a global empire, yet he is so afraid of not just physical dangers but even of simple dissent that he has an enormous security machine protecting him and will not associate with people (e.g., in townhall meetings or meetings with soldiers) unless they have been thoroughly vetted by the Secret Service. Here you have a seemingly powerful man who is, however, extremely limited in what he can personally do. And, he would be afraid to go to a bar after “work” without a platoon of security agents who pre-arrange this event months in advance to make sure that Bush’s fellow bar patrons are in perfect agreement with his policies. And even with all that, he is less secure than I am.
(Similar reasoning can be used in the case of soldiers in hostile territories. They are little more than slaves to the state, yet they die every day despite being armed to the teeth. Or in the case of Iraqi citizens living in violence-torn places. None of them have either liberty or security.)
Or how about prisoners on death row or in gulags being tortured? Surely, they have neither liberty nor security. Are the securitists eager to end up like them?
Finally, consider gun rights. If the freedom to own weapons and to use them in self-defense is taken away, people will become less safe. Thus, a diminution of liberty (to own guns) results in less security.
These examples show that lack of liberty can co-exist with lack of security; in other words, they show that giving up liberty is not sufficient for obtaining security.
2) One of the things lack of liberty does is it prevents people from buying their own security. Government-provided security is one size fits all. There is no reason to believe that this size, in fact, fits all or even the majority. Some people get too much security; others get too little. This is inefficient, and a free market in security will much improve things.
Further, US government’s meddling in the affairs of other countries makes us less safe. But peace, private property, and freedom go together. You have peace, you will have more freedoms (and by contraposition, interventionism, protectionism and statism in domestic affairs generate bellicosity) and at the same time more security (terrorists will have fewer reasons to attack us, and the US government will have fewer excuses to hold you in prison indefinitely without trial).
Safeguarding freedom of association through tighter immigration laws could lead to greater security. (Though I ultimately favor individual state control of immigration or, better yet, control by private property owners.)
These points show that greater liberty will lead to better security; in other words, lessened liberty is not necessary for greater security.
3) Also, exactly which liberties do our opponents think they need to give up for better security? Freedom to trade with whoever they want (do they really want to be poor?)? Freedom to profit from market activities (that’s socialism)? Freedoms resulting from having procedural rights like due process (I doubt they’ll pick that one)? Freedom to own guns (again, those increase security)? Freedom to hide information from the state (e.g., through privacy rights)? Freedom not to be tortured at the will of the emperor? No offense, but maybe these guys are just wimps. I say: I ain’t afraid of nothin’, no “terrists,” that’s for sure. So you give up your own liberties; I’ll keep my own and take my chances. That’s the libertarian or even anarcho-capitalist way.
This challenges the minor premise, by saying that not everyone wants to be protected by the state.