Liberty or Security?

"They who can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin

I'm a little torn about this post this morning. I'd love to churn out a bunch of smartass remarks about President Obama and his communist cohorts and, God knows, he's been providing an endless stream of material. But, something has been bugging me more and more lately and it's not that funny. Americans, regardless of political leanings or party affiliations, seem increasingly willing to surrender their basic freedoms and individual rights, in exchange for what they perceive to be safety or security. Over the past decade, we've accepted a ton of new restrictions and intrusions on our god given rights. In most cases, it hasn't made us any safer and, even if it had, I'd question whether or not it was worth it. I love the quote at the top of this page by Ben Franklin. If you're willing to trade freedom for security, you don't deserve either one. I've read several books on economics by Thomas Sowell and one of the themes he always returns to is that; economics and life are a series of choices and trade offs. It's not a zero sum game. If you make the choice to buy a really expensive car, that limits the size house you can afford or the number of times you can eat out at nice restaurants. In other words, you can't have it all. The same goes for the amount of security that we ask government to provide. For them to protect us, we have to allow them some authority to tell us what we can and can;'t do. By the way, this is a key point that far too many Americans have lost sight of; in America; government derives it's powers "from the consent of the governed". They only get to boss us around because we let them. The constitution doesn't define or establish our rights; our rights are natural, or God given. The constitution gives government it's rights and keeps them from trampling ours; at least that was the plan. Most reasonable people understand that it is necessary to allow the government authority over certain areas of our lives in order to protect the overall interest of society. We give the cops the authority to patrol our roads and highways, and enforce traffic laws. Otherwise, every time we backed out of our driveway, we'd have to worry about some drunk jackass running over us. The tradeoff is, we might get a ticket for rolling through a stop sign in our neighborhood at 4:00 a.m. because some lazy ass cop is trying to make his quota; yeah, that happened to me. The problem I see now, is that so many people are only paying attention to what they're gaining, or what they think they're gaining; and ignoring what they're giving up in return. In a lot of cases, they refuse to believe they're giving up anything at all. There are a couple of technical terms for those people; Democrats and morons. I'm jokingly taking a little jab at Democrats, but the problem is definitely not confined to one party or group. In fact, I think the Republicans are worse because they claim to be the party of individual rights and limited government, while, more often than not, governing in exactly the opposite direction. Some of the things that conservatives complain the loudest about were established at the hands of Republican presidents and congresses; the EPA, OSHA, the ban on incandescent light bulbs, and No Child Left Behind are just a few examples. As a rule, we tend to ignore bullshit if it's the product of someone we voted for. The vast majority of Americans sat back and watched or applauded over the last 40 years as federal, state, and local governments waged war against smokers. Almost everyone agrees that smoking is bad for your health, as are a million other things that we do on a daily basis. But, we don't regulate or stigmatize any of those other things the way we do smoking...yet. It used to be hard to make an argument for regulating individual behavior that didn't harm others. Thomas Jefferson once wrote:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

That's tough to argue with. My neighbor may be killing himself by smoking and we both know it. But, he's not hurting anyone else, should the government step in a protect him from himself? Most reasonable people would say no, because that would open the door to all sorts of intrusions and regulations on personal behaviors that might be harmful. So, why would so many of those same people support a ban on smoking in privately owned buildings, a ban on incandescent light bulbs, or a government imposed limit on the size soft drink you can buy? Why would rational people, who've never committed a crime, allow govt. Employees to grope their genitals, view digital scans of their bodies, or spy on them, on their privately owned property using cameras on unmanned drones? It's because they've been convinced that we live in a world of catastrophes, disasters, and epidemics; and that only government can protect us from those things. They're willing to trade privacy, individual choice, and freedom in exchange for that protection. It's a viscous, never ending cycle:

Millions of Americans can't afford health care because the drug companies and insurers have conspired in profit making. People are dying in the street because they can't afford health care; even though a federal law forces hospitals to treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay, and regardless of the fact that the govt. already spends almost a trillion a year on Medicare and Medicaid. The only solution is for government to control health care.

Poor choices in personal behavior, such as smoking and over eating, are costing hundreds of billions in health care costs, which is the responsibility of the taxpayers since govt. controls health care. This is placing a heavy burden on the economy. The only solution is for government to regulate these harmful behaviors.

Excessive use of energy from fossil fuels causes carbon dioxide emissions, which is destroying the planet. The only solution is for government to regulate energy production and usage.

National security is threaten by terrorists, who are living among us, plotting the next 9/11. In order to give law enforcement the ability to stop them, we must allow the government much broader powers with regard to search, seizure, and surveillance. Random body pat downs and digital scanners that can see through clothing are needed to keep bombs off airplanes.The government must have the authority to detain people indefinitely, without bringing charges, and to deny them legal representation.

Individual behavior is killing wildlife and plant life with reckless, wasteful consumption. The only way to preserve these resources is greater government control and regulation of land use

Private business is failing to fairly compensate their workers and endangering their safety. The only solution is for government to regulate wages and working conditions.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. In order to just survive, we have relinquished control over almost every aspect of our lives. But, to who? We've surrendered these broad totalitarian powers to a group of less than 600 people, who , according to the polls, has less than a 20% approval rating. We're trusting these people to micro-manage the lives of over 300 million people. In addition, we're trusting that they won't abuse this authority; despite tons of evidence that they will. So, why do so many people choose security over liberty? Good question! I think a lot of them are too lazy to take responsibility for their own lives. It's easier to blame others and seek compensation for being wronged. The other group are the ones that want to force their beliefs and values on everyone else, with the naive belief that it will never effect their own freedom. I doubt that any other free people in history have so willingly submitted to tyranny.