Do we maintain the freedoms we often tout, and leave it to everyone to decide for themselves how they want to handle the threat? Do we continue to have expert recommendations for each threat we encounter but have no mandates or legal repercussions for not following? Or do we sacrifice some of our freedoms and leave our fate in the hands of those deemed experts to protect the many? Do we assume that the majority, if left to handle a threat for themselves, will make that threat worse due to ignorance or carelessness? After thinking about these questions, I made a realization about the political parties/ideologies and how they connect to these questions. As stated earlier, this type of situation has blurred the lines between the parties a bit, so I am going to be creating a new spectrum. I am also of the opinion that blurring the lines between the parties is a good thing, for it will open up more topics for discussion rather than immediate criticism and scrutiny based on your political affiliation. This spectrum is not meant to associate you to a specific party per se, rather, help you see where you personally line up in the discussion of Liberty and Freedom vs. Security and Protection. I will try to advocate both sides of the spectrum, along with their pros and cons.
As you can see, it isn't separated out as a left vs right map like the political compass you may have seen. Rather, it deals with security vs liberty. Another difference is that it is a gradient, so you can be on another part of the spectrum but with the same color as someone on the opposite side. This explains why some on the left and right agree with certain policies, but maybe for different reasons.
Let's start with the side of Security and Protection. Who doesn't want security, or to be protected from harm or theft? A safety.com poll found that roughly 38% of the US households have some form of a security system and we can well assume that those roughly 125 million Americans aren't only associating themselves with one political party. I worked for 3 years at one of the largest home security companies in the country and spoke with thousands of people who were often open about their political beliefs and the policies they were or were not in support of. Of course security comes at a cost, and in the case of security systems, that is part of your hard earned paycheck every single month. That may very well be one of the biggest contributing factors to why the number isn't higher than 38%. Another cost, however, that must be paid to maintain security on a macro level, isn't always monetary. While your tax dollars do go towards paying to enact and enforce a lot of those policies aimed at protecting us as a nation, the expense I am referring to is that of Liberty and Freedom. We may often think that we can have both, but if you look at any law, it either limits or restricts certain actions, or, requires certain additional actions to maintain safety and compliance. Most people will probably argue that many of these are required sacrifices, such as food and drug regulations and standards, or anything that protects human life. We are a country of laws after all, right? At least that's what I often hear, but what civilized country isn't a country of laws? We don't tout this country as the land of the laws, rather, we proclaim the land of the free!
So let's discuss Liberty and Freedom. Yes, we have laws, but to be a land of the free, we must not seek so many laws in the name of 'security' lest we lose our freedoms. Every law passed means less liberty, by definition. Liberty means "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." Every law restricts our behavior, and often, one's way of life. Many laws keep us safe, but if you were to say all laws are necessary, you would be setting yourself up for hypocrisy. If you have ever criticized or been against a bill created, passed or voted upon by the House of Representatives, the Senate, or any President of the United States, past or present, you know that not all laws are necessary or desirable. Even if a minority is against an enacted or proposed law, it should be considered whether or not it is necessary. I'm sure I'm not the only one to check out various dumb laws throughout the country for a laugh. While many are comical and easy to criticize, you must also think of them critically. Why would such a silly law be enacted, especially when it isn't harming anyone? For example, in North Dakota, one may be jailed for wearing a hat while dancing, or for even wearing a hat at a function where dancing is taking place.1 In Vermont, women must obtain written permission from their husband to wear false teeth.2 In Indiana, it is illegal for one to catch a fish with his/her bare hands.3 If you were in any of these states, would you have supported any of these laws? Even if they wouldn't affect you personally, you should be able to see how these unnecessary 'restrictions imposed by authority' disrupt 'one's way of life [and/or] behavior'. Now of course not all laws that we may believe need to be done away with are as silly or seemingly pointless as some of these, but unless 100% of the nation is in favor of a law, we should consider the repercussions and liberties on the line.
Consider, for example, the "law of unintended consequences", an examination of events, usually revolving around politics, where the unintended or unforeseen consequences of an action may often be worse than the policy enacted aimed at accomplishing the opposite. You may have heard recently "we must not let the cure be worse than the disease." That is one of thousands of examples where policy aimed at helping people can have adverse and opposite effects. "Economists and other social scientists have heeded [the power of the law of unintended consequences] for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it."4 Another one of these examples that you may have heard of is the 'three strikes, you're out" policy in California.
In an understandable reaction to “liberal” judges who would give slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders, the 1990s saw a wave of automatic sentencing legislation to take away judges’ discretion. This included California’s famous 1994 “Three Strikes and You’re Out” rule (Proposition 184), where someone convicted of a third felony would get 25 years to life. Currently, 24 states have some form of “three strikes” legislation.One problem with these rules is that many acts are felonies that most people would consider petty, such as bringing a smoke bomb to high school. In California, one man with two prior felony convictions was sentenced to 25 years to life for being with a friend who got caught selling $20 of cocaine to an undercover cop. An unintended consequence of the “three strikes” rules is that someone with two prior felony convictions now has a serious incentive to evade arrest for a third. And in fact, empirical studies of Los Angeles data suggest that more police officers have been killed because of this effect.5
(Photo: World History Archive/Newscom)
"Give me liberty or give me death!" A quote by Patrick Henry in 1775 that most of us have probably heard multiple times in our lives. But what does it mean and why did he say it? I could write a few paragraphs explaining the historical significance but I think it's best to discuss what he was trying to say and how it can apply to us today. First, I'd like to introduce another great quote from his speech which comes just prior to the famous one liner: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" I think this is a remarkable summation of what his quote means. He doesn't say 'give me freedom or kill me', rather, that he is willing to fight, even to his own demise, in order to obtain or maintain freedom. What is the point of being alive if you can't live your life how you want? Is peace (security) so important that we are willing to be put in chains to obtain it?
These two quotes are what inspired me to write this, in conjunction with our current situation. There are some who are willing to be put in figurative chains in order to obtain security, and peace of mind. While I personally do not agree with that stance, I understand some people think differently than I do, worry about different things than I do, and may feel life is more worth living when they feel they are completely free of external threats, regardless of how that restricts them personally. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have the benefits of security; I didn't think more or less of anyone paying for a security system because many would often praise the peace of mind it brought them, even if they never had to use it. Depending on how you look at it, some might even argue most of the trade offs of some laws are well worth the rewards. Why do we even need so much freedom in America? Other countries have less freedoms and more laws and seem to be doing just fine, right? One of the many reasons other countries, particularly developed ones such as those in Europe and parts of Asia, do not value freedom is because they don't understand the importance of such, which seems to becoming more common in America lately as well. Yet our country was founded on the premise of freedom by some of the most brilliant minds in history. Were they just anarchists who wanted to do whatever they wanted? Or was there more to it? Of course that is rhetorical, I sure hope everyone understands that the founding fathers of our country weren't anarchists; they of course understood the importance of some level of law. However, they believed these laws were meant to be restrictive, and that government was meant to be small, and beholden to the citizens of that nation. That the only responsibilities were to protect our "inalienable rights" which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The role of government is to protect our freedoms, so much as they can also protect our lives. As stated in my favorite movie, V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." Many throughout the world view their government as being on their side, and that the bigger their government, the bigger their protections. But if there is anything you should learn from your history classes, it should be the fact that history repeats itself. Historically, the more control governments have had, the more oppressed their people became. The quality of life decreases, poverty increases, and all citizens become slaves to the state. You can't eat without permission, you can't sleep without permission, and you can't live without permission, and that's barely an exaggeration if at all. The greatest events of oppression in history came from countries where the citizens gave up too much liberty to their government, or where the government took too many liberties from the citizens and they were powerless to fight back. Every law passed that is not directly a protection of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness is a step towards potential oppression at the hands of the government, historically, no matter how good or altruistic those laws may seem.
So what's the solution? I’m not going to argue that if you lean more towards one side of the spectrum than I do that you are wrong; everyone has different desires and preferences. I will argue, however, in favor of liberty and why that is truly the safest option. Keeping in consideration all of the facts I have presented above, including historical cycles and trends, the best solution is whatever will best maintain our liberties. This does not necessarily mean less security, for we maintain the power to choose how to protect ourselves; there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions for anything in this world, especially in regards to protection from various threats. We live in a developed nation that, though not invulnerable to threats, is highly capable of dealing with almost anything we can imagine without the need of government control or regulation. The only threat we would be incapable of dealing with is that of a tyrannical government forcing us into oppression if we choose to err on the side of ‘safety’ and sacrifice our freedoms. The true irony in seeking more security over freedom is that eventually too much government ‘protection’ can lead to an inability to protect yourself from said government. In our current situation, it is mostly private companies that are providing the best solutions and contributing the most to society, NOT government. As described before, we can sacrifice our freedoms, or they can be taken from us involuntarily. The argument right now is whether or not we should be sacrificing some of our liberties in order to protect the vulnerable, but the result is that those in power are taking those liberties away from us without giving us the choice. Let us not forget what the ‘law of unintended consequences’ teaches us about what happens when policies are forced upon a society without considering all the consequences, and without full support of those who elect our leaders. Let us also not forget what happens when a government is able to maintain full power and control over its people. These things don’t happen in one night; Rome wasn’t built in one day. They slowly chip away at liberties, telling you it is for your protection or in your best interest and before you know, you are fresh out of liberties.
Sources: 1, 2, 3 - https://www.policeone.com/police-humor/articles/50-dumb-laws-in-america-URIQZkUxvuyDrSQu/
4 - https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/540/handouts/french/unintconseq.html
5 - https://fee.org/articles/5-unintended-consequences-of-regulation-and-government-meddling/
