The Professor
		1.19.05
	Those who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security... ...or something to that effect. Apparently Ben Franklin said it, and if you make your way onto US currency, apparently what you say attains the axiomatic status of a mathematical proof. At least if you're one of the "quite concerned" who believes that George Bush has taken us one step closer to a Police State through his phone surveillance of Americans. To take Mr. Franklin's quotation out of context is one thing (I wonder what he was referring to, and how that stacks up against today's circumstances). But that's an argument that goes to societal matters that one need not even broach. What interests me is the question of whether Bush's more liberally-minded critics even know what they're saying by adopting such a powerful stance. At its more basic form, what the quotation is suggesting is this: If you are willing to accept any form of governmental or military (assuming there's a difference) oversight over your own personal behavior -- oversight that would, to some extent, compel you to live in a "less free" way -- you'd better not be surprised when the security you sought turns to oppression and the freedom you hoped to keep remains a distant memory. That, in a nutshell, is how I read Franklin's quotation. For someone whose libertarian instinct is as strong as mine, that's basically something I can groove with. That today's critics of Bush's Bad Doctrines would think so, too, is fairly stunning. When applied to the surveillance/spying scandal (over 500 people were targeted in the program), I can understand why critics would pull out the Benjamin in support of anything from brow-beating to impeachment hearings. The problem is that the statement covers many more situations than the present one. Taken to its limits of coverage, we would also find that such brave programs as Social Security, welfare, affirmative action, non-smoking bans, gun control legislation, and any number of other initiatives designed to create greater security also leave us with less freedom. I'd be curious to see whether these programs are also on the minds of our leaders when they adopt such strident rhetoric in their criticism of domestic spying. Somehow I doubt they would. Of course, there is much more to this argument. The question of motives can be taken in as a way to distinguish surveillance from social programs, and I have run across more slippery slope arguments that predict What's Next than I know what to do with. But luckily for me, Franklin's quotation does not treat these considerations as relevant. At bottom, his argument is normative in nature: It does not care whether the security is well-intended, or whether there are measures in place to keep it from spiraling out of control. It only cares about whether freedom is worth giving up for the sake of security. And if you don't think it is, then you don't ever think it is. And that would wipe not only federal domestic spying program off the map, but about 99.9% of the entire federal government along with it, as well.
			MASTER INDEX Advice Columns Suck Archives Baseball Because I Can Betting Pool Clark's Corner Fat Guys Get Naked Too Fiction Football The Gogs Guest Article Mitch's Multi-Monthly Meanderings Mixed Bag NCAA Tournament The Professor Sex Stone