Replies

I think civil rights have protected us from the brutal treatment one sees in some regimes around the world, and I'm glad they are there. I think our grip on civil liberties has always been shaky--anytime we find a problem seriously enough to declare a war on it (including one that involve actual wars) we see illegal wiretaps, no-knock policies, taking of property, suspension of free speech, free press, even freedom of religion. I know some of you are very concerned about right to bear arms because you believe otherwise the government might not honor its commitment to protect your other rights. (BTW I am not interested in taking your guns away from you, but I do distinguish regulation from suppression; I think all our rights are qualified by an obligation to protect others from harm)

Here's my take on what has gone wrong with our civil liberties, in no particular order: we like freedom for ourselves, but don't trust other people with it; we are in too big a hurry to get things done, and push through some policy initiatives and laws without having a public discussion (indeed, debate) about how those policies will affect everyone involved; and we disagree on what liberties people should be allowed to have (making the application of constitutional principles far from straightforward). I think by disciplining ourselves to demand rationality in the policy making process, we give ourselves time to find alternatives that are liberty-protective.

Let me give a specific example. I wish I knew more details about this. There are some takings going on somewhere points east of where I live invoking eminent domain, but in a novel way: some municipalities are forcing people to sell their homes (sometimes at below market value because of the way they clear whole blocks of houses) not for public goods like highways, but so that a developer or corporation can build on that same land properties that will bring in higher taxes. The argument is that this produces jobs. But, on the other hand are these people who are loosing their homes, some of which have been in the family for generations. That strikes me as wrong. I think that is an abuse of eminent domain. I'm wondering if the debate had been more public and everyone in the debate had their interests taken seriously, if the decision might have been made differently. At any rate, it is my hope that greater rationality here will lead to greater freedom. After all, I think if people were more rational, they would realize there are good reasons to voluntarily help others.