Liberty vs. Security: a False Dichotomy

Must Read

Reality Check: Proof WTC Building 7 Did Not Fall Down The Way Gov. Agency Claims?

What really happened to World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11th, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District Commissioners’ historic resolution calling for a new investigation, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks' bombshell multi-year, $300K study of WTC 7 and how it collapsed.

Proof Gov Wrong About Collapse of WTC Building 7?

In episode #2 of Truth in Media with Ben Swann, we discuss the new University of Alaska Fairbanks' bombshell...

Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks WTC Building 7 Study

"A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7" is a draft report based on a 4-year study conducted at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) by lead researcher Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, the Professor of Civil Engineering at University of Alaska Fairbanks along with research assistants Dr. Feng Xiao, Associate Professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Dr. Zhili Quan, Bridge Engineer at South Carolina Department of Transportation.
Robin Koernerhttp://www.bluerepublican.org
Robin Koerner is a political and economic commentator for the Huffington Post, Truth In Miedia, (Ben Swann), the Independent Voter Network (IVN), and other sites. He is best known for coining the term “Blue Republican” to refer to liberals and independents who joined the GOP to support Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency in 2012. His article launched the biggest coalition for Ron Paul and a movement that outlived his candidacy, which now focuses on winning supporters for liberty (rather than just arguments), by finding common ground among Americans of various political persuasions. He is also the founder of WatchingAmerica.com, where 200 volunteers translate opinion about the US from all over the world.

There is really only one argument in support of mass surveillance by the State: increased security can be bought with reduced privacy.

That claim begs the question: “how much liberty buys how much security?”

It is almost impossible to imagine how two completely different abstractions – security and liberty – could be compared, when idiomatically, we can’t even compare apples and oranges, so we should be very uneasy that an entire political age has been built on just that comparison.

- Newsletter -

But, since our leaders insist on making it, and it is the only one they ever make for extinguishing our civil rights, and in particular our privacy, let’s run with it …

To the defenders of the surveillance state, security means “saving American lives”. That is why Feinstein and her ilk justify governmental surveillance with statements like, “the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata might have prevented 9/11”.

That only makes sense as a justification if the privacy of all Americans is of less value than 2996 innocent American lives. Of course, it’s not just our privacy that has been sacrificed: our freedom of speech and our right to due process have been sacrificed by the same laws, and with the same justification, that paved the way to systematic and secret violation of privacy. So what the likes of Feinstein are really saying is that the American way of life has less value than 2996 innocent lives.

Moreover, most of the same people in government who advocate sacrificing the American way of life (liberty) to save American lives (security) support the sacrificing of American lives to save the American way of life.

This inconsistency goes beyond the moral: it verges on the mathematical.

To date, the American government has, in the War of on Terror, sacrificed nearly 7000 American lives and somewhere between a hundred thousand and a million non-American lives to protect (we are told) the American way of life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror)

Our way of life, of which our privacy is an important part, cannot simultaneously be worth fewer than the 2996 American lives lost on 9/11 and more than the approx. 7000 American service personnel and hundreds of thousands of innocents we have killed abroad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war)

Assuming Feinstein and friends are not being deliberately disingenuous, what she must really mean is that the surveillance state, and the War on Terror of which it is a part, would not just have saved 2996 Americans on 9-11, but that they are saving more American lives than –
(a) all the Americans we have lost through fighting “the War on Terror”, plus
(b) the non-American lives taken by our actions (presumably and somewhat sickeningly weighted by some factor that makes each one worth less than a “saved American”), plus
(c) whatever value we might give to the American way of life, which includes our privacy (measured, for mathematical consistency) in terms of a number of lives.

Indeed, precisely this ability to quantify is assumed when Obama tells us of the need to “balance” or “weight up” our security against our liberty.

Since no one is arguing that killing innocent foreigners makes us any safer, but our government has killed huge numbers of them, it is apparent that the more closely an innocent non-American life is valued to an innocent American one, the more American lives must be saved by the sacrifice of liberty to reach this so-called balance between liberty and security.

Our leaders keep getting away with this nonsense because, as far as I know, not one politician or journalist has yet asked two obvious questions on which this entire trade-off of security and liberty depends. 1) How many American lives is the American way of life worth, and 2) how many innocent non-American lives have the same value as an innocent American life?

There is only one pair of answers that is mathematically and morally consistent with the Bush/Obama/Feinstein case for eliminating basic civil rights, including privacy, as part of the War on Terror: the value of a non-American life must be de minimus, and the value of American liberty must be approximately zero.

Either the math is wrong. Or the morality is wrong. Or both.

So much for the variables. What about the logical inconsistency: if liberty must be sacrificed to save American lives, how can sacrificing lives for liberty possibly be justified? If there are mathemagical numbers that can resolve that paradox, let’s have them.

Denis Diderot, one of the most famous thinkers of the Enlightenment, rightly remarked, “In order to shake a hypothesis, it is sometimes not necessary to do anything more than push it as far as it will go.”

An internally inconsistent hypothesis doesn’t need to be set up against a competing one to be shown to be false. It simply collapses under the weight of its own contradiction when examined closely. So let’s push the buy-security-with-liberty hypothesis as far as it will go.

And because I believe in competition, I’ll offer up my own base-case strategy for preserving American liberty and lives.

It’s in two parts, and it’s really complicated.

Here goes.

1) Don’t give up any liberties. 2) Don’t put Americans in harm’s way.

Now, I am aware that this kind of extremist politics may not keep all Americans safe in a utopia of liberty: after all, 9-11 happened. But I do know that if you don’t give up any of your liberty, then you still have all of your liberty (I’m definitely going to beat Feinstein and Obama on logic) and that making others feel secure does more for one’s own security than doing the opposite.

Perhaps I am wrong – and if I am, the NSA will be the people to prove it.

After all, they’re the guys with all the data.

- Advertisement -

Featrued Sponsors

Life Info App

Support TiM by using the app to get cash back at major retailers.

Pure VPN

Military grade privacy on all devices.

Brave Privacy Browser

Simply download and use the Brave browser to support Truth In Media.
- Advertisement -

Latest News

Reality Check: Proof WTC Building 7 Did Not Fall Down The Way Gov. Agency Claims?

What really happened to World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11th, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District Commissioners’ historic resolution calling for a new investigation, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks' bombshell multi-year, $300K study of WTC 7 and how it collapsed.
video

Proof Gov Wrong About Collapse of WTC Building 7?

In episode #2 of Truth in Media with Ben Swann, we discuss the new University of Alaska Fairbanks' bombshell multi-year, $300K study that explains...
video

Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks WTC Building 7 Study

"A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7" is a draft report based on a 4-year study conducted at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) by lead researcher Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, the Professor of Civil Engineering at University of Alaska Fairbanks along with research assistants Dr. Feng Xiao, Associate Professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology and Dr. Zhili Quan, Bridge Engineer at South Carolina Department of Transportation.
video

Camera Footage of Epstein’s Cell “Unuseable”?

The latest on the Jeffrey Epstein case is that authorities now claim that footage from his cell has been deemed unusable. This, even as...
video

A Deeper Look into the Jeffrey Epstein Suicide (TiM pc.1)

Breaking down the facts about Jeffrey Epstein and his suspicious suicide, his alleged co-conspirators and financial backers. We take a close look at all...
- Advertisement -

More Articles Like This