The libertarian security conundrum
Cathy Young has an interesting piece in Reason. The upshot: civil libertarians will have to accept some compromises.
If they insist on a purist libertarian position and we suffer another devastating attack, they will no longer be part of the conversation on response. To be part of that conversation in that event, they need to make it clear now that they are serious about safety, not just individual liberty:
No society can regard large-scale casualties from terrorist acts as an acceptable risk. An individual can personally prefer a higher risk of death in such an attack over some expansion of government powers, but telling others to make the same choice is not a winning argument.
In the past, wars and other national security threats led to far worse assaults on American liberties than anything being contemplated now. Already, the majority of Americans seem willing to accept at least some curtailment of civil liberties in order to reduce the threat of terrorism. Even one more major attack, let alone three a year, could usher in some very dark days for freedom. If champions of civil liberties want to prevent that, they need to take a different approach: to show that the compromises we are being asked to accept will not make us safer, or that there are ways to make us more secure without sacrificing our bedrock principles. If they want to be heard when they warn about loss of liberty, they cannot afford to sound cavalier when they talk about loss of life.
Amen to that.
Comments
Leave a Reply
