Giving Up Our Freedom in the Name of National Security: Should We? [107*-15]
77THE LIBERTARIAN
Ron Paul and My Esoteric
WE FINALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING! Really agree. He spent his first 10 minutes of last nights debate singing music to my ears when they got to the question of Freedom vs the Patriot Act at the 2012 Republican Presidential National Security Debate. I have been want to write about this area ever since listening to a series of lectures on the idea of Liberty and Freedom and what it truly means. My discussions will probably be in my Principle and Pragmatism series as it is quite a wide-ranging and fascinating subject, as it turns out.
The question at hand was should Americans give up some of their individual freedoms via the Patriot Act and other laws in order to gain protection from the threat of terrorism in today's interconnected world. Newt Gingrich and most others gave a resounding YES and Ron Paul gave an even more resounding NO!. Gringrich shot back with we have always given up our freedoms when fighting wars and gave examples of the Civil War, WW II and others.
Paul then noted, what war are we fighting? The last he looked, Congress had not declared war on any person or nation, the President is pulling out of our two main engagements; terrorism isn't a physical thing you can "declare war" on, it is a tactic used in war and you want me to give up my freedom for a tactic? No, I don't think so. Paul implied in his remarks that giving up ones freedoms ultimately lead to despotism, it always has, it always will. He is right!
History supports him in many different instances which I will discuss in future hubs, it really is fascinating. But, I will leave you with this. I hadn't really thought closely about the idea of freedom, I just sort of took it for granted and assumed freedom was the same all over and all human beings want it; boy was I naive! I wasn't even close.
Just for starters and discussion in the comments, is freedom, liberty, comes in three forms, Indvidual freedom, political freedom, and national freedom. History is full of examples where none, one, two, or all three existed in one society at the same time. In fact, in todays world, North America, Britain, and Europe are almost unique in all of history where all three freedoms exist to one degree or another at the same time in each nation; that is really a rare state of affairs.
I also found, it is rare that people actually want individual freedom while they almost always want national freedom. There are many cases throughout history such as Julius Ceasar's rise to power, for example, where a people gave up their political freedom in order to secure national freedom while retaining individual freedom. There are other societies that willing gave up individual freedoms, think Sparta, in order to enjoy political and national freedom. Can you imagine Americans doing the same?
Well, think about the encroachments laws such as the Patriot Act are asking for. Are we on the path willingly, if unknowingly giving up both individual and political freedoms in order to easily secure national freedom?
Once More I Ask For Your Opinion
Are you afraid we are giving up too much of our Individual and Political Freedoms in order to secure our National Freedom?
See results without votingBOOKS ON FREEDOM
 | Amazon Price: $1.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.40 List Price: $14.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.99 List Price: $50.00 |
|
No Place to Hide by Robert O'Harrow National Security Technology Freedom
Current Bid: $7.95
|
|
Enduring Freedom The National Security Council Convenes
Current Bid: $3.99
|
|
Harold D. Lasswell: National Security and Individual Freedom FIRST EDITION
Current Bid: $29.95
|
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (2)
- Funny
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (4)
CommentsLoading...
No, such a compromise is on the slipery slope toward tyranny. As a progressive, I have many difference with ron Paul and his beliefs. But if you ask me he has more integrity than all the other GOP candidates put together. If this were a different reality I could cast my vote for him. Cred2
Thanks, Claptona.
I am going to have to take a little issue with Greenwald, AKA Winston (thank you for commenting,btw); not on the substance and certainly not on his main conclusion, but with what I took as an implication that protest in American didn't work; in my opinion, it clearly did, despite all of the violence.
I also think the goalposts have been moved a bit regarding tolerance of protesters by most police and authorities. It is my impression that all-in-all, the police have been restrained compared to what I saw in the 1960s, and especially the Civil Rights protests of the 50s, which I remember also; age has some, if not many, advantages. It seems, the violence, Oakland aside, generally comes out when the protestors have overtayed their welcome, as it were, in the parks and other open areas where they set up camp for the long-haul. They didn't bring their own police to stop the crime that came as a result of their occupation or sanitation to pick up after themselvesthat comes with it
Hi My Esoteric,
Nope, thanks, I'll take my chances with the terrorists vs. the terrorism brought on by my own government.
I don't need them spending my taxpayer dollars to listen to me or you talking on the phone.
Jimminy, these guys cannot even figure out how to cut 3 billion from a trillion dollar deficit. I'm going to give them more power? I think not.
Show me that our government can actually govern, and maybe then we can talk - still about limiting the powers of those that "watch" over us.
Good topic and read.
Cheers,
John D. Wilson
My Esoteric,
I cannot say it better than Glenn Greenwald so I will let him speak for me. From Salon.com:
"(1) Despite all the rights of free speech and assembly flamboyantly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the reality is that punishing the exercise of those rights with police force and state violence has been the reflexive response in America for quite some time....
The intent and effect of such abuse is that it renders those guaranteed freedoms meaningless. If a population becomes bullied or intimidated out of exercising rights offered on paper, those rights effectively cease to exist."
A person who doesn't move is not aware of his chains. The goal of intimidation is the prevent unwarranted movement.
I understand what you are saying, @AKA Winston, and thank you for visiting me and commenting as well. Be careful, however, as the Rule of Law cuts both ways. There are two part to Justice, one is the Rule of Law, as you say, but there is also, if I may bastardize a phrase, the "Rule in Equity" as well. It takes the two, to make up a Just system.
However, to what you refer to appears to be simple police brutality, maybe not at its worst, but pretty darn bad, for America. Of course, switch to the reports on Egypt right now, or Syria, to see what bad really is elsewhere in the world. Nevertheless, it should NEVER be like that in America, even the toned down version in Oakland, but it has always been, and, unfortunately, it always will.
You have to face the fact that we are a conservative Nation, heavily populated by fundamentalist-leaning Christians. In the 1900s there has been this fierce battle between Left and Right for the control of government and civil rights. In the 1960s, the Left finally gained control and managed to get a bunch of civil rights reforms passed before the Conservatives used the rising crime rate (partly, anyway) to drive the Left out of power in the 1980s.
However, the Police and Prosecuters never really changed. They opposed Miranda and did all they could to subvert the changes, so we all remember the riots of the 1960s and 1970s, and the police reaction to them. Things quieted down after that because Vietnam was over, the Revolution was over, and the Country was licking its wounds and had taken a decidedly Right-bent in its philosophy; until today when things are again becoming intolorable and people are taking up their Constitutional right to protest.
While great strides were made in the 60s and 70s, so by that measure, I call the Revolution a success, the Conservatives have been in power long enough to restablish themselves in the policing functions of society. Consequently, I suspect we will end up with the 60s all over again.
Boy, when I get going, I can't seem to stop, sorry.
I totally concur with your statement. While I believe that during dire and extraneous times, certain freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the whole, our entire individual freedoms should never be sacrificied. This would result in the perilous road towards authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorship. Every thinking person knows where such dictatorships ultimately lead!
LOL, niall.tubbs, thanks for stumbling across me and commenting. Actually, this portion of Paul's belief is part and parcel to the the Libertarian philosophy, but as HScheinder says, "he goes off the rails" in so many other places it is scary.
For whatever reason, I haven't really dug deep into the Patriot Act to see what I like and don't like. This is an area where my conservative side of me starts popping out a bit; after all I didn't spend 43 years tied to the military in one fashion or another for nothing, ya' know. So, I have to carefully weigh each provision against how I think it encroaches on individual and political liberty.
For example, the current issue in front of the Supreme Court. Can the police put a GPS tracking device on your car without a warrant, and certainly without your knowledge. On the second part, I have no problem saying yes. It is the first part that I am have a discussion with myself about, should a warrant be required?
Clearly, a warrant is needed to put a wiretap in ones home, but, is ones car, the external part of the car, considered the same as the internal part of ones home? Is the GPS device simple a cost savings device, as the police are arguing, to save the cost of a ton of cops doing surveillence, which is legal without a warrant. On the face of it, to me, that last argument is sort of persuasive.
Glenn Greenwald in Salon has described the ultimate problem facing the nation - that our lack on enforcement of the rule of law has allowed power to coerce compliance by intimidation rather than overt acts.
This is precisely the attempt made in the pepper spray incident in California with the OWS protesters - the police attempted to stop future protests with the threat of their actions.
Without adherence to the rule of law, we are simply despotism unnamed.
Excellent Hub My Esoteric. I agree also with Ron Paul on this and some other things. Unfortunately he rides off the rails on many others. The Patriot Act is a threat to our liberty and should be abolished. I would retain one area that I had experience in when I worked in operations on Wall Street. That would be the anti-money laundering provisions. There was so much money coming and going from obscure places with simply numbered accounts hat it was incredible. it was a playground for drug dealers, tax cheats, terrorists, and all types of criminals. Otherwise, scrap the Patriot Act.
My Esoteric; Well stated opinion,I'm in full agreement.An anomaly when Ron Paul errors on the side of human rights,privacy right to be oneself; no Orwellian Winston Smith !
Thanks for your comments Ralph and Deni. I don't think I can go quite as far as Deni does but the message is very understandable.
I'm with My Esoteric and Ron Paul on this one.
This is one of the areas that I agree whole-heartedly on with Ron Paul--I gave him a standing ovation in my house last night. When people are afraid, they have a tendency to let anything happen in the name of safety. TSA is a joke (Don't Touch my Junk!), the Patriot Act is a joke...and the terrorists have succeeded...they have scared people so silly that they are willing to change their lifestyle.
Nice hub!
Thanks for following me GoGreenTips and leaving a comment and Fan Mail, I do appreciate it. I suspect though, you will be disappointed in the rest of my political views as they drift to the moderate left. While there are things I do agree with Ron Paul about, in total, I cannot. It is my opinion that if Paul were able to implement his tolal philosophy, we would no longer have a United States of America with a U.S. Constitution but revert back to a united States of America, with a Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation.
If you look at the totality of what he believes, it is, in my opinion, the government we had in 1770 that most closely resembles it.
Great article and I believe 100% with Ron Paul. I've been a supporter of his for many years, and have become more of a Libertarian as the years go on and I see what a total mess the other two parties have dome to this country.
My Esoteric Hub Author 6 months ago
I definetly agree with you concerning Ron Paul's integrity, Credence. I sort of have hopes that Huntsman is basically a decent, honest politician as well.