President Bush said on Tuesday that freedom itself was under attack. He spoke more truly than he knew.
Listening to the news, reading the pundits, and talking with people around town, I get the impression that a sizeable percentage of people would do anything to ensure that this sort of thing never happens again.
Everyone wants a little more security. And if that means less freedom, the argument goes, so be it.
Increased security on domestic flights means less freedom for passengers. It means more time at the checkpoints and more invasions of privacy. It means honest people being treated as criminals-before-the-fact, violating the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. It means accepting increasingly invasive measures which will do little to stop a truly determined terrorist and which will do much to give the terrorists exactly what they wanted in the first place.
What did the terrorists want? Why did they do this thing?
They did it because they hate America and they hate what America stands for. America stands for freedom and for wealth, for the rights of the individual over the power of the state, for religious tolerance, for peace in plenty.
They wanted to see us hurt. They wanted to see us cry. They got that, in spades.
But they also wanted to change us. To change our way of life. To change our society. Are they going to achieve that goal? They might.
There is no realistic way we can provide safety for all our people. Making sure that airline meals come with nothing but plastic spoons isn't going to do it. We can't afford to hire as many security guards, policemen, undercover agents, and detectives as it would take.
So what can we do?
Realistically, we can't afford to hire all the manpower it would take to protect our citizens. We neither can nor should surrender our freedoms for simple physical safety, undermining our way of life.
Our founding fathers faced a similar dilemma. How can a government protect the common man?
Answer: it can't. The best it can do is enable the common man to protect himself, then stay out of his way while he does it. That's why they passed the 2nd amendment, allowing individuals to arm themselves against a dangerous world.
Limiting our freedoms gives the terrorists what they wanted, and it won't provide the safety we need. Increasing our freedom is a far safer option.
pax
Listening to the news, reading the pundits, and talking with people around town, I get the impression that a sizeable percentage of people would do anything to ensure that this sort of thing never happens again.
Everyone wants a little more security. And if that means less freedom, the argument goes, so be it.
Increased security on domestic flights means less freedom for passengers. It means more time at the checkpoints and more invasions of privacy. It means honest people being treated as criminals-before-the-fact, violating the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. It means accepting increasingly invasive measures which will do little to stop a truly determined terrorist and which will do much to give the terrorists exactly what they wanted in the first place.
What did the terrorists want? Why did they do this thing?
They did it because they hate America and they hate what America stands for. America stands for freedom and for wealth, for the rights of the individual over the power of the state, for religious tolerance, for peace in plenty.
They wanted to see us hurt. They wanted to see us cry. They got that, in spades.
But they also wanted to change us. To change our way of life. To change our society. Are they going to achieve that goal? They might.
There is no realistic way we can provide safety for all our people. Making sure that airline meals come with nothing but plastic spoons isn't going to do it. We can't afford to hire as many security guards, policemen, undercover agents, and detectives as it would take.
So what can we do?
Realistically, we can't afford to hire all the manpower it would take to protect our citizens. We neither can nor should surrender our freedoms for simple physical safety, undermining our way of life.
Our founding fathers faced a similar dilemma. How can a government protect the common man?
Answer: it can't. The best it can do is enable the common man to protect himself, then stay out of his way while he does it. That's why they passed the 2nd amendment, allowing individuals to arm themselves against a dangerous world.
Limiting our freedoms gives the terrorists what they wanted, and it won't provide the safety we need. Increasing our freedom is a far safer option.
pax
