A common sentiment expressed in a LTE in today's Rocky:
I find it interesting that people who live in the boondocks and have nothing to fear from terrorists are so willing to give up their liberties in order to feel safe.
[...]
People who really have something to fear from terrorism, such as those who live in large urban centers like New York and Los Angeles, voted overwhelmingly against George Bush in 2004 because they recognized that lashing out like a frightened, tough-talking, 8-year-old and giving up your civil liberties (what are we fighting for again?) only makes us less safe. [snip]
Who isn't willing to give up liberty for security? Consider Social Security - Workers give up a big chunk (about 14%) of their pay for a small but guaranteed monthly check after retirement. I assume those NY and LA voters favor that program. Or take our national drug policy. (please!) Hundreds of thousands of citizens are prosecuted and imprisoned for voluntarily possessing or ingesting certain chemicals on the theory that doing so will make the public safer.
Both of those are examples of the government making huge incursions on the liberty of the citizenry in exchange for some security, and if you think that those and other similarly reasoned government policies are wrong then you are part of a tiny minority of the American voting public.
Compared to those popular government policies the domestic spying scandals are small beer. So whenever anyone on the left or right sides of American politics complains that we're giving up too much liberty for security in the war on terror, I have to ask... do you consistently apply that line of reasoning?
Posted by Walter at January 4, 2006 01:31 PMConsistency is over-rated. Specifics matter more than general principles. Libertarians and socialists on the extremes alike tend to miss that point.
Compromise, when it doesn't involve something like killing people unnecessarily, is generally wise. Being blind to that, not so much.
Social security has saved the lives, literally, of millions of people. Opposing that for an abstraction is questionable. In my book. The cost in freedom is pretty damn trivial. Being able to weigh the balance is crucial. That's where I stand and live, and why I'm there for many libertarian ideas, but only when weighed against others.
Posted by: Gary Farber at January 8, 2006 12:42 PMSocial security has saved the lives, literally, of millions of people.
I'm not only taking the deontological argument, I'll vigorously disagree about lives saved via the SS system. In fact, I think that it cost lives on the margin.
Consistency is over-rated. Specifics matter more than general principles. Libertarians and socialists on the extremes alike tend to miss that point.
I say consistency matters, and this isn't an argument against homeland security measures. I'm saying that anytime a non-libertarian says he isn't willing to sacrifice freedom for security he's talking nonsense. As you say, specifics matter, and the more honest argument is to say the threat of further Islamic terrorist action isn't enough of a threat to warrant limiting freedom.
In the case of SS we're talking about a serious loss of freedom. In my case it could well mean the difference between a comfortable retirement (absent SS altogether), and no retirement at all. I don't think I'm unusual in that respect.
Posted by: Walter at January 8, 2006 07:24 PM"I'll vigorously disagree about lives saved via the SS system. In fact, I think that it cost lives on the margin."
It's a clear question. My only grandmother would have died far sooner. Yours presumably not.
Social Security is pretty much a question of how s how soon our grandparents die, and whether it's a question of governmental support or not.
for some of us, it boils down to: "kill your grandparents? Or not"
For others, they think of other stuff.
So it strikes me, anyway.
Posted by: Gary Farber at January 8, 2006 09:41 PM It's a clear question. My only grandmother would have died far sooner. Yours presumably not.
Social Security is pretty much a question of how s how soon our grandparents die, and whether it's a question of governmental support or not.
I can think of several ways to keep them alive other than SS. Things that would work much better than SS, too. You could probably come up with some ideas if you tried.
for some of us, it boils down to: "kill your grandparents? Or not"
For others, they think of other stuff.
In my previous comment I made it clear I that think mortality rates increase because of SS. You can disagree, but why would you impugn my motives?
Posted by: Walter at January 9, 2006 12:23 PM