More Freedom Means More Security

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on November 26, 2011

 “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?

Who is Serving You?

While it’s often argued by many that the State must help to provide for the needs of the people; what is not discussed is what the people actually want. While visiting family in Atlanta recently, it occurred to me that most Americans simply do not recognize the differences between the nature of the State and the nature of the market.

When it came time to eat lunch we stopped in a small restaurant in Atlantic Station. As we found our seats, the server cordially gave us menus, asked what we’d like to drink and said to simply let him know if we had any questions. Though the cuisine and atmosphere was very impressive, after a brief look at the menu we decided the prices were too expensive.

As the waiter returned to the table, we thanked him for his service but told him we weren’t looking to spend that much money and had decided to find lunch elsewhere. With a smile he politely thanked us for coming in and wished us a nice rest of the day.  There were no guns, no threats of arrest, and no men with badges forcing us to give up our money.

While most encounter this at least once a day, rarely do Americans take the time to appreciate what’s actually taking place. How often do we go into a department store or restaurant with the understanding that these businesses have spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in advance to provide a good or service without any guarantees of a return on their investment? There are no demands or obligations to purchase any product; indeed the demand comes from us that these products be available. Should a business fail to produce what is demanded by consumers, it will soon file bankruptcy and cease to exist.

This is the nature of the market. Every entrepreneur must take massive risks and invest large sums of money to create production, innovation, distribution and let’s not forget paying the wages of the servers who welcome you when you enter and thank you as you leave; all to give you what you want.

The functions of government are diametrically opposed to the nature of the market. How many times have you been given the option to pay or not to pay taxes? Were you ever given an opportunity to not pay for the welfare state, endless wars or bailouts to corporations? Though many view the State as our protector, what happens if you refuse? Can you picture an IRS agent simply thanking you for your time and wishing you a nice day if you withhold your income? People do not pay taxes out of consent or compassion, but out of fear and submission.

As author and editorial Vice President of the Mises Institute, Jeffrey Tucker has pointed out before; even government institutions invoke a sense of submission upon your entering.  As Tucker explained, imagine walking into a department or grocery store. How many people are waiting to assist you? If you purchase a product but decide you no longer desire it or it’s defective, you simply take the item to the exchange desk and are either reimbursed or given the opportunity to choose another item. No questions asked.

Tucker then asks you to imagine entering the DMV. How many people are there to welcome you? Do any of the employees, (who are paid with your tax dollars) seem to have any urgency in helping you? Do these institutions ever seem to be efficient?  If you have a complaint how eager do they appear to be to resolve the issue?

The circumstances are even worse at the airport. If you’ve purchased tickets in advance online, you expect them to be available and to save some time before the flight. Should the airline fail to provide efficient services, you have the ability to seek out a competitor. It is not the owners of companies who hold the power in the market, but the consumer. Whether you’re wrong or right the business must cater to your interests or suffer a loss in sales.

But once you go through security, your demeanor changes entirely. There is no sense of control on your part. You walk with intimidation, hoping you’re not selected for the extensive security measures. No TSA agent seeks to make you feel safe or welcome. There is no greeting or sense of service, but a look of suspicion, of accusation and an implicit threat of force.

Behind the very notion of every government program is the assertion that the State is doing what’s best for the country; that our wise leaders are simply acting on behalf of the interests of their constituents. But at what point did politicians ask the people what they wanted? Was there not an overwhelming rejection of ObamaCare throughout the country? How many Americans asked to be subjected to the TSA’s strip searches? Were you ever asked how your money should be spent, or if it should be taken from you at all?

Politicians and bureaucrats have long fashioned themselves as benevolent leaders acting upon the will of the people, but broken promises and the increasingly violent disposition of the State has revealed them to be the direct opposite and has proven the State to be an abysmal failure. The voluntary sector of society, the peaceful cooperative nature of individuals within their communities and throughout the world that provide for society have demonstrated it is not government that produces the greatest public-servants, but the market.