“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -Thomas Jefferson
The latest Republican debate over national security issues
raised some very significant questions and was probably the most substantive
debate thus far. Key among the concerns raised was the balancing act Americans
continue to tolerate between preserving their rights and seeking security. The
heated exchange between Congressman Ron Paul and former Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich has gone viral and exhibits a fundamental difference between the
two candidates. Many Paul supporters and libertarians rightfully grew indignant
at Gingrich’s casual dismissal of the rule law and the Fourth Amendment in
particular; but what should be more telling to conservatives and libertarians
alike is Gingrich’s lack of support or understanding of the free market and his
unwavering faith in government.
When asked if he opposed the Patriot Act, Congressman Paul
stated:
“I do. I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it
undermines our civil liberties […] we can still provide security without
sacrificing our Bill of Rights.”
Paul would go on to argue that Oklahoma City Bomber, TimothyMcVeigh was indeed a “vicious terrorist” who was tried and convicted of his
crimes without the use of any legislation such as the Patriot Act.
To this Gingrich shot back,
“Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point…I don’t
want a law that says, ‘after we lose a major American city, we’re sure gonna
come and find you…’
…I want a law that says if you try and take out an American
city, we’re gonna stop you.’”
Ironically, the former Speaker’s candid statements in
support of circumventing the Constitution drew a rousing applause from a
Republican crowd that claims to revere the founding document. Though Gingrich’s
line of thinking may be of some use as a bumper sticker, it fails to ask some
vital questions. Why must we trust government for our security when it was
government that failed in the first place to protect us from terrorists? Should
we not be free to provide for our own security or to choose someone else to provide
the service?
Nothing exemplifies this dilemma more than the
Transportation Safety Administration, (TSA). Created in the wake of the 9/11
attacks, like the Patriot Act, it too has urged many to ask if Washington has
crossed the line in infringing civil liberties for the sake of national
security. The TSA’s enhanced security measures such as pat-downs and full-body
scans of passengers have triggered many travelers to seek other forms of
transportation or to resist the invasive measures altogether. Some airports are
looking to provide safety precautions by other means to quell the growing
animosity of their customers towards the TSA.
This is where Congressman Paul’s belief comes in that restoring our
liberties, (in this case, economic) will actually make us safer.
Congressman Paul has been a staunch critic of the TSA for
many years and has even promised to abolish the agency altogether if elected
president. Paul supports the idea of turning airline security back to the
private airlines themselves rather than depending on a government bureaucracy.
The twelve-term congressman from Texas argues that private businesses are far
more equipped and have greater incentives to provide sufficient security
measures without violating an individual’s rights. But is such a position
realistic? How would passengers know the airlines were safe?
These very questions came into play in a recent discussion
between Democratic commentator Alan Colmes and former advisor to then Governor
Jeb Bush, Justin Sayfie. When prompted with the question of whether or not he
disagreed with Congressman Paul’s opposition to the Patriot Act, Sayfie
replied,
“…I have to agree with Speaker Gingrich on this…Timothy
McVeigh was able to commit an act of terrorism and the goal of the Patriot Act
is to prevent acts of terrorism…I also don’t think Ron Paul got it right when
he said you don’t have to sacrifice freedom for security or the Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment is a very important right-to bear arms.
Yet millions of Americans are going to be traveling on airplanes today and they
forfeit their right to carry arms; and I don’t think most Americans believe
that the Second Amendment believes–states that you should be able to bring
rifles, and handguns and shotguns onto airplanes. That’s one example where Ron
Paul’s philosophy is bumper sticker politics and it’s just wrong.”
Aside from the fact Sayfie seems to believe your rights are
in reality privileges from the government and that Americans “forfeit their
right to carry arms”; what is more striking is his blatant disregard, (and
apparent acceptance) that this relinquishing of rights is not a voluntary act,
but one compelled by government force. It’s reasonable to assume in any other
scenario Sayfie would strongly decry the notion that your right to self-defense
must be annulled; but in this case he makes even Alan Colmes come off as a
conservative, (this is no small task).
Said Colmes in response to Sayfie,
“…You [Sayfie] should ideally be against the Patriot Act
like Ron Paul is because part of the Patriot Act is they can look at your gun
records. They can look at your library records…”
The news anchor prodded Colmes further,
“So you’re completely comfortable Alan, with someone getting
on a plane with you-say you’re headed home for Thanksgiving-and they’re armed?
You’re completely comfortable with that?”
Colmes responed saying,
“I didn’t say that. However, there’s no evidence the Patriot
Act is going to prevent that. There’s no evidence that the Patriot Act would
have prevented Tim McVeigh [from carrying out the Oklahoma City Bombing].”
What was neglected in this conversation and the recent GOP
debate is the government imposed monopoly over security. As the mainstream
media and politicians debate over symptoms of larger problems, they fail to
comprehend the root cause of their dispute: lack of competition. Imagine
private airlines free to manage and provide for their own security. The market
would provide new and innovative techniques to ensure their customers’ safety
without invading their privacy and develop various types of security measures
tailored made to suit your demands. To those who ask what incentive a company
has to provide better services than government, I ask what incentive does
government have? No government employees were fired after 9/11, can you imagine
any corporation not firing those responsible for allowing such a tragedy?
Had the airline companies retained their right to run their
airlines as they pleased and pilots were given the opportunity to carry
firearms, (which was forbidden at the time by government) it is likely that
9/11 would have never occurred. Though Justin Sayfie claims Americans would
prefer a plane without armed passengers, in which scenario would terrorists
armed only with box cutters, (or anything for that matter) be more likely to
attempt to hijack a plane: when the government forbids firearms from being on
board, or when the passengers and the pilots are likely to be packing heat?
Should you not feel comfortable flying under such
conditions, (as it appears Mr. Colmes wouldn’t) or still feel TSA style
screenings are necessary, the market would respond to this demand by providing
alternative services to ensure your safety because they value your business and
seek to make a profit. Losing customers to hijackings and plane crashes isn’t
exactly good for business. Everyone expects airlines to provide multiple flight
plans to accommodate their needs, why not extend that to the most vital part of
the airline service?
To overcome the many ills we’re facing today, from national
security threats, high unemployment, poverty and violence, we must first turn
away from the institution that has not only failed to remedy such problems but
has perpetuated them; and look to ourselves, to our families and our
communities and build voluntary networks to protect that which we hold dear. A
friend of mine once said, “The freer the market, the freer the people,” and a
free people are what we should be protecting. If we must compromise our liberty
and rights for security, what exactly is it that we’re trying to secure?
No comments:
Post a Comment