If you love safety so much why don’t you marry it?
Yes, I am kidding you with that title. But only a little.
Tony Snow, who I regard as a good guy working at a shitty job, had this to say over the press leaks about a secret program initiated unilaterally by the Bush administration to search through money transfer records, including in some cases the transactions of American citizens both within the country and out of the country.
[T]he New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public’s right to know in some cases might override somebody’s right to live, and whether in fact the publications of these could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans.
Tony Snow, speaking on behalf of the Bush administration
So if someone is concerned about the civil rights being smothered and skirted by the Bush administration in its myopic quest against terrorism, they may be responsible for killing someone, according to that. Is there any other way to read it? If you override someone’s right to live, doesn’t that necessarily mean that you’ve killed them? If they still have life, their right to it hasn’t been violated, so the only way you can violate someone’s right to life is by killing them, or being responsible in some legally supportable way for their loss of life.
By the same logic, as a supporter of the Second Amendment, I’m responsible for killing the over 30,000 Americans per year who die of gunshot wounds. I’m responsible for placing in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans.
It’s the old collectivist dream of everyone being responsible for everyone else. I’m not buying it from Conservatives any more than I’m buying it from Socialists.
- It’s not my responsibility to pay for your health care.
- It’s not my responsibility to get you a job.
- It’s not my responsibility to protect you from making poor decisions.
- It’s not my responsibility to feed you.
- It’s not my responsibility to educate you.
- It’s not my responsibility to protect you from harm.
And guess what… none of those are the government’s responsibility either.
It is, however, the government’s responsibility to submit to checks and balances. It is the government’s responsibility to respect and protect the Constitution. It’s written in plain English in the Presidential oath.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Oath taken by the President of the United States of America
Being content merely to survive wasn’t the way of Americans when this country was founded. “Live Free or Die” has changed into “the government can tap my phones or go through my bank records if it’ll make us all safer.” If dying isn’t an acceptable option, your motto must be “Live, at any cost.” The cost, unsurprisingly, is freedom.
Freedom enables terrorism. Suck on that for a minute.
What follows from that is that you can reduce terrorism by reducing freedom. A lot of people are fine with that. To a depressing majority of Americans, freedom isn’t a treasure… it is a liquid asset. Expendable, when something “better” comes along, like the false promise of safety. It’s not worth the risk. It’s not worth anyone’s life (well, except for our soldiers!)
I see a lot of bumper stickers that read “Freedom Isn’t Free.” Indeed it isn’t. It has downsides. Not only must people die to preserve freedom, but people will die because of it. Something to think about as you wave your little American flag or shoot of your fireworks this Fourth of July in an often hypocritical show of appreciation for freedom.
Yes, I’m aware that revelation of the government’s intrusive efforts to combat terror financing may result in an increase in terrorists’ ability to hide their funding, and thus be better able to finance their attacks. Eventually, they’ll succeed again, and people will die. I’ll likely be sad. I may even cry for them. God knows I did on 9/11. But even though I’ll mourn their deaths, I won’t for an instant think that our freedom wasn’t worth the cost. Everyone dies, but not everyone in the world gets to live free.
Terrorists aren’t attacking our freedom, they’re attacking our safety. Attacks on our freedom are purely our own doing.
[...] Mark Jaquith: Freedom enables terrorism. [...]
Well said, sir, well said.
Excellent bit of writing there. Very well said and well presented.
What more could be added.
But somehow it’s everybody else’s responsibility to elect people who’ll protect the well-fed from the starving?
Protect them how? Are hungry people in America planning an uprising? It really shouldn’t be a class warfare issue. Everyone, regardless of how hungry or well-fed they are, should have equal protection of the law.
Well yeah, my point was that ‘the law’ changes when the national consensus changes (I read your list as a screed against taxation, was it not?) It’s not about the USA per se, I was just making a general point. I may write about it later on my blog and pingback.
[...] And, Mark ruminated on responsibility, safety, and freedom. [...]
Awesome entry, Mark. Thanks for saying it.
The best kept secret of World War II was the fact that we had cracked the Nazis’ and Japanese encryption codes. To this end there was a large effort to give them plausible reasons why we kept finding their subs so easily, so they wouldn’t figure out that we were “reading their mail”. (For example, we would fly a plane overhead to “discover” a sub, and then shortly thereafter we would attack.)
If this secret had been revealed, they would have changed their codes to something we couldn’t break. In all probablilty we have lost the war. Millions more would have died, and most of Europe would have fallen under the heel of Nazi fascism. That’s no exaggeration.
So… for the people who knew this secret, it WAS their job to keep their mouths shut. And if some newsman caught wind of it, he WOULD HAVE BEEN directly responsible if he had announced it — such an act would have actively crippled the war effort.
The finance-tracking program was legal. Congress was aware of it. The NYT caught wind, and (par for the course) deemed “getting the story” more important than the success of a highly effective tool in our fight against Islamist fascism.
You’re right — it’s not your job to keep other people safe. But you don’t have the right to destroy others’ efforts to do the same.
By your argument, I could sneak in and deflate the tires of a firetruck, and then when somebody dies because the firemen couldn’t get there fast enough, say “Hey man, it’s not my responsibility to save people from fires.”
I’m basically a Libertarian, so I for the most part agree with you assessment of what responsibilities people (and government *don’t* have. But it is the government’s responsibility to do those things that individuals can’t do, and “provide for the national defense” is one of them. It’s even in the Constitution.
The NYT sabotaged that effort for nothing more than their own self-aggrandizement. Disgusting.
testing this
It’s not my responsibility to pay for your health care.
It’s not my responsibility to get you a job.
It’s not my responsibility to feed you.
It’s not my responsibility to educate you.
It’s not my responsibility to protect you from harm.
Ya know we have in reality elected for the govn’t to take care of all of these things.anyone who grosses under $28,000 is elegable for all of the above. (i’m willing to bet that exceeds 50% of the population of the U.S.. which makes the following statement FALSE. sorry bud make a better arguement and post it for me…
It’s not my responsibility to protect you from making poor decisions.
Alaric, yes, we did ask the government to take on all of those responsibilities after the Great Depression. It was rather pathetic that we felt the need for the federal government to start babysitting us. You know, before that, it was the individual States’ responsibility to take care of its poor and unemployed and starving. The federal government was created to act as a mediator between States and to be the unified will of the States in foreign affairs. THAT’S IT. All of these extra responsibilities which US citizens have whined about and expected the federal government to handle are NOT in the Constitution. Oh, and it’s expressly said in the Constitution that all powers not given to Congress are reserved to the States. So, Congress and the President and the Supreme Court have absolutely NO constitutional authority to be handling these issues.
I didn’t elect anyone for that purpose. I didn’t volunteer to pay for those things. That money is forcibly taken from me (at gunpoint, eventually). Thus, it is not my responsibility.
And those types of socialist programs are usually based on household income, and the median (50% mark) for that is $43,389 as of 2003. Regardless, I have not assumed any responsibility for anyone else. Other people have thrust that burden on me, against my will.
[IMG RSS] Tempus Fugit Congressman Warned Bush About Potential Constitutional ViolationsIf you love safety so much why don’t you marry it?
I would enjoy to marry safety.
at least he would know the proper protection to use when having sexual intercourse, so i am not burdened with a baby.
I do long for a man with that quality.