No Friends of Liberty in Foxholes?

The Libertarian Enterprise ^ | October 1, 2001 | David M. Brown

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

No Friends of Liberty in Foxholes?

by David M. Brown

dmb1000@juno.com

Exclusive to TLE

Are there no libertarians in foxholes?

In a recent op-ed first published by the Boston Globe, reprinted by Reason Magazine at their web site, then reprinted by the electronic newsletter Freematt's Alerts, Cathy Young opines that maybe individual rights and human freedom aren't so sacrosanct after all -- not if we're in a foxhole and the terrorists are lunging at us with box-cutters in their teeth.

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, perhaps there are no libertarians in them either, Young suggests.

I don't know. It's a theory. Perhaps no foxhole residents possess any convictions of any kind. Perhaps the human spirit simply shrivels and withers in foxholes. But I doubt it.

"Do I like the idea of people being able to encrypt electronic communications so that they are beyond surveillance?" Cathy Young asks. "Frankly, I found it scary even before September 11 -- precisely because of the threat of terrorism. It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks. Even in the Declaration of Independence, the right to liberty is preceded by the right to life."

How sad to read these comments. Is Cathy Young implying that if I don't want the government to be able to open my mail at will, I'm an enabler of terrorism?

I agree that the right to liberty is grounded in the right to life. It pertains to what my right to life entails in a social context -- what others owe to me and what I owe to them, if we are to be able to function in support of our own individual lives and also get along with each other. It's true that the right to liberty doesn't mean the right to do any old which thing I choose to do. I don't have the right to threaten my neighbors or do arbitrary violence to them. If I act as a criminal, I do forfeit the right to walk as a free person. And if government has (true) probable cause to suspect me of criminality, yes they should have every reasonable power to investigate.

But how can I be asked to forfeit my right to protect my own personal privacy in advance of any reasonable evidence of any rights-violating wrongdoing or planning of same?

When I am in a public context like an airport, whose managers might reasonably request the ability to search my suitcase as a condition of my doing business with them, I can understand submitting to an inspection ... though I might not agree with it and might even think it's offensive and obtuse, depending on how long they linger over the underwear.

But Cathy Young is talking about another case altogether. She is suggesting that I must give up a particular right to act on my own behalf when the private enterprise involved is entirely willing to sell (or give me) the par

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

The rest of the article can be found at the source URL.

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

Here's something you might be interested in.

I messed up when I didn't post the entire article. It looked good in the preview box.