« | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | »

Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security

Posted on October 30th, 2012 at 19:12 by Paul Jay in category: Do you feel safer yet?, Security -- Write a comment

[Quote]:

from the oh-really-now? dept

By now you’ve probably seen the paraphrase of a Ben Franklin quote that those who give up liberty for security, deserve neither (he said similar things a few different ways, but the standard actual quote is: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”) Whatever the actual quote is, there is quite a lot of truth to it. Giving up liberty for the sake of security rarely works out as planned. Either way, it appears that the editorial board of the Washington Post is either wholly unfamiliar with the quote, or believes it to be untrue. It has come out with an editorial arguing in favor of extending the FISA Amendments Act (and against an ACLU/EFF challenge to the law, to be heard today at the Supreme Court, even with the crazy weather) saying that it is perfectly fine to “give up liberty” for security:

Discomfort with the government’s capacity, technical or legal, to collect and retain massive amounts of personal information is understandable. But the 2008 FISA amendments sought a compromise between two essential goals: preserving American liberty and robustly defending Americans’ lives and property. We favored the law and believe that it should be extended.

That’s somewhat ridiculous. After all, as we’ve noted over and over again, almost no one seems to understand what’s actually in the FISA Amendments Act, in part because there’s a secret interpretation of it that only the government knows. This means that many, many people, including those in Congress, are clearly misrepresenting what’s in the law. The fact that the NSA refuses to say how often it has used this secret interpretation to spy on Americans should be a pretty big warning sign — especially as politicians who are either clueless or ignorant claim that it can’t be used to spy on Americans.

And really, this is the root of the “don’t give up liberty for security” quote. Once you do that, you’re cooked, because it’s a situation that only expands in one direction. Those who seek to hold back liberty will always make use of scare stories and FUD to seek to be able to spy further. You would think that the editorial board of the Washington Post, which has been covering this kind of mess for quite some time, would actually have some sort of ability to look back at history. Apparently its historical knowledge is close to nil.

  1. I struggle with the use of that Franklin quote as a basis for deciding what makes good policy. It’s equally easy to trot it out in defense of gun rights, or against mandatory seat belt laws. How does one distinguish where it applies and where giving up some freedom makes sense?

  2. Desiato, that’s a good question. Ultimate freedom (chaos) and ultimate security (Stalin) are mutually exclusive so there has to be a compromise. If we ignore the constant tension existing between the two, we talk in terms of one or the other, as if that were possible. (OK, hope you don’t take the preceding as a lecture; I’m struggling for clarity) Maybe a starting point for what makes sense is awareness of our motivation for desiring one or the other. Some level of normality and unselfishness for the good of the community are positives. Selfishness and ultimate freedom seem to be connected. Fear and ultimate security likewise. Since being exposed to the phrase, “enlightened self-interest”, it keeps coming back to me………

    OK, this became a ramble. Anything useful in there?

previous post: Helicopter Fishing

next post: Informant: NYPD paid me to ‘bait’ Muslims