Give Me Freedom and Give Me Security

What is freedom? By “freedom”, I mean the basic freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution: freedom of press, of speech, of religion, of assembly, as well as all the freedoms implicitly protected, but not enumerated. By these, I include privacy, the freedom to buy and sell property, and many others, generally subsumed by the Declaration of Independence’s phrase, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

What is security? This means protection or assurance of safety from acts of war and crime, including acts of terrorism. I include protection from nuclear attacks, cyber attacks, suicide bombing, kidnapping, mugging, rapes, and robbery. In short, security based in the broadest sense I can imagine.

If you say I must “trade” freedom for security, you imply there is a continuum of freedom, from greatest to least, and a similar continuum of security. Another implication is that maximum freedom and maximum security are not compatible in the same society at the same time. Are these premises true? I see a variety of degrees of freedom in societies worldwide, from an America, where such freedoms are protected by the highest law in the land, to Iraq and North Korea, where personal freedoms may be curtailed by the whim of a single person, the dictator of that land. I therefore agree with the premise there is a continuum of personal freedom from country to country around the world.

Is there a similar continuum of security? No country is crime free, nor is any country free of the threat of the attacks from other nations or from terrorists, so I cannot easily conclude this from example. The question of trading freedom for security implies that denying personal freedoms, particularly privacy, search and seizure, and perhaps travel may well increase national security. Certainly if a police or defense agency was omniscient and knew all facts about every person within the country’s borders, their ability to act to prevent crime and prosecute criminals, spies, and terrorists would be greatly increased. Being able to search any person at any time would greatly limit the ability of criminals and terrorist to pursue their agendas. Documenting all travel in and out of and within a country and limiting the travel of any person at any time would also greatly aid security efforts. All of these freedom restrictions have been done in the name of security at various times, with some, but not complete success in achieving security. I therefore agree with the assumption there is a continuum of security that can be achieved on a national level.

Such draconian security efforts, while defending the nation from attacks, do not necessarily defend every individual. Indeed, such power in the hands of government officials vastly increases the opportunity for abuse. In fact, when personal freedoms have been taken away for security’s sake, such abuses have followed. This occurred in the National Socialist government of Germany and in the communist governments of the U.S.S.R., China, and Cuba. Thus, we see there is a continuum of national security, but that does not translate to personal security. The trade off is thus between personal freedom and personal security in a society versus the nation’s security. This essay will focus on this trade off.

Given that a nation is able to increase its security by reducing personal freedoms of its citizens, should it do so? The goal is to maximize both personal freedom and national security. Can a nation achieve sufficient security while retaining the full freedom of its citizens? How much security can be achieved with no reduction in freedoms whatsoever?

I stress “freedom of citizens” because given the definition of freedom and security above, it is clear that much of the threat to security comes from non-citizens. Many of the freedom restrictions given can be applied to non-citizens: immigrants, legal and illegal, and resident aliens. Suppose all draconian restrictions were applied to all non-citizens: they all had to be tracked and registered upon entry to this country and every one had to notify the police or immigration bureau when they moved. Would this be sufficient security for the nation? Such restrictions were imposed to some extent in the United States in World Wars I and II, with severe immigration restrictions and the internment of Japanese nationals, but no other freedom restrictions. German infiltrators from a submarine were caught and tried. There were no notable domestic security violations.

National borders are still porous. If the nation devoted a large number of military units, say four soldiers per mile, along with the appropriate detection and interdiction technology, the borders could be sealed from illegal immigration. The nation would still be vulnerable from traitors among its own citizens and any non-citizens that forged their citizenship. Would that be sufficient security?

Leaving that question unanswered for the moment let me ask another: how much freedom can be given up? Specifically, how much personal freedom can the citizens of the United States give up? The very basis of the United States is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To reduce any personal freedom requires the modification of the Constitution. Only three amendments have been passed in the 219 years of the Constitution that have restricted personal freedoms: Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)] Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)] and Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)]. The eighteenth amendment was canceled by the 21st. Practically speaking, very little freedom can be given up under the U.S. form of government to its citizens without violating the Constitution.

Further, even given that an amendment restricting personal freedoms passed, the foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence. Within it, the personal rights of citizens are derived from God, not from the government. The government is formed for the benefit of the citizens. If the government violates personal freedoms, the citizens have a right, an obligation, to overthrow the government. Therefore, if three quarters of the U.S. agreed to an amendment abridging personal privacy, for example, the remaining quarter of the states and any citizens disagreeing with the amendment are obligated to either overthrow the government or form a separate, independent government.

This is such a startling idea today, that I quote the relevant portion of the Declaration below:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Emphasis mine)

Thus, the question of the essay, while true in its assumptions concerning security and freedoms, is resolved by realizing that personal freedoms are not negotiable by the government. Governments derive their power from the people, in order to secure the rights of the people. People derive their freedoms from the Creator, or, in atheistic terms, by our nature of being human. Governments cannot deny our humanity or remove our freedoms. Those that do are subject to their own people, and are liable to be overthrown. The overthrow of despots by a popular revolution has occurred many times in history, proving this point.

The practical answer to the essay’s theme is to maximize border security and protection from non-citizen threats. A nation should gather information about its enemies, while protecting the rights of its citizens. To seek to restrict a nation’s citizens’ personal liberties is to threaten the nation from within, from its citizenry, while protecting it from without. This self-defeating strategy will fail, while the strategy of defense from foreign invaders has not failed in the 226 years of U.S. history.

Other nations with notable personal freedom have similarly been successful at maintaining national security. The United Kingdom has not been conquered for nearly a thousand years, despite being attacked by Spain, France, and Germany. The democracies of Canada and Australia have not been conquered in over a hundred years of existence. Democracies that have been conquered, such as France, succumbed not due to personal freedom, but due to poor military strategy, such as the Maginot line.

The most threatened nation in the world is Israel. They have suffered three major wars since their creation in 1948. They are surrounded by hostile nations and have hostile terrorists mingled within their population. They have lost thousands of lives due to wars and terrorist attacks. They still have personal freedoms while they have won three wars and while they continue to fight terrorism, even while negotiating with their enemies. If Israel can maintain personal freedoms while under attack, why cannot every nation? Why should any citizenry give up their freedoms, when security has been obtained through brave battles against enemies rather than domestic security restrictions?

I am not alone in this belief that the loss of personal liberties does not add to national security: “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

I have shown that it is not possible for a nation to give up personal freedoms and remain a stable nation. I have shown that nations with personal freedoms have not been conquered, when supplied with a good military, and those that have been conquered were due to failure of the military, not due to the personal freedoms. I conclude we should trade no freedom for security, but use our freedom to work for security. I demand freedom and security from my government.

(Look it up, and a lot more, at http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm

After I posted this, I thought I should add the following paragraph, just before the last:

We should not sacrifice personal freedom in exchange for supposed national security, but we ought to trade our personal security for national security. That is, we should put ourselves at risk for our nations sake. I refer not only to service in the nation’s armed forces, a noble sacrifice of some for the good of many, but also other forms of national service that enhance the nation’s security. This was best demonstrated in World War II with national steel, brass, and copper drives in the United States, and many other acts of homeland service for the war effort. In Great Britain, volunteers watched the coastland for possible invasion. In the current war on terrorism, President Bush has called for U.S. citizens to be observant for individuals acting out of the ordinary. Further efforts to enhance the national defense against terrorism could include volunteers to watch our borders, to examine shipping containers entering by land, sea, and air, and to assist Federal security personnel at the airports. This is the correct approach to security—individual initiative and effort, rather than centrally planned and controlled restrictions on liberty.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.