Here are some questions to help determine whether someone is a Statist.
Which is more important, the liberty of the individual or the liberty of the State?
Let's define liberty as the freedom to act
Does the liberty of the citizen contribute to the liberty of the State?
Does the liberty of the State contribute to the liberty of the citizen?
Would the increase in the liberty of the State ever cause or involve the decreased liberty of the citizen?
Would the increase in the liberty of the citizen ever cause or involve the decreased liberty of the State?
Is a State responsibile for the liberty of its citizens?
Is a citizen (or citizens) responsible for the liberty of the State?
Epilogue - how do we feel about a Vice President who feels that it is ok for a State to torture it's own citizens "in the name of war" but when it comes to using the power of government for the direct benefit of citizens his tune becomes,
Maybe the best way to explain it is that the Bush administration didn't lack in ethics, because they redefined that word to their own liking, but they lacked a sense of shame. Why there hasn't been an expression of shame over the Yoo documents is almost totally beyond me. All I can comprehend is their total faith in their own decisions and the inability to look backwards and reflect. "We did what had to be done" is a self-comforting way of avoiding admitting mistakes but it should not hold us back from expressing our sense of shame over their actions.
"I worry a lot," he told King, "that they're using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government, and much more authority for the government over the private sector. I don't think that's good. I don't think that's going to solve the problem."
Here is a question with which to leave you.
Would you rather,
a) live in a country that allows the torture, secret surveilance, indefinite detention, and extra-judicial arrests but have a secure feeling that you aren't going to be attacked tomorrow;
OR
b) live in a country that does not allow torture, requires warrants for wiretaps and arrests, guarantees the accused a day in court to show why they are innocent, in return for the mature and rational realization that no government can keep you safe 100% of the time.
Posts
4 comments:
"Would you rather,
a) live in a country that allows the torture, secret surveilance, indefinite detention, and extra-judicial arrests but have a secure feeling that you aren't going to be attacked tomorrow;
OR
b) live in a country that does not allow torture, requires warrants for wiretaps and arrests, guarantees the accused a day in court to show why they are innocent, in return for the mature and rational realization that no government can keep you safe 100% of the time."
That's a false choice. A country that does not allow torture, requires warrants for wiretaps and arrests, and guarantees the accused their day in court is perfectly capable of securing its citizens from these monstrous attacks. The two goals are not mutually exclusive, and to suggest that they are is to let those responsible for defending the country and the liberties of the people off the hook.
I'll admit that those two choices oversimplify the situation. The heart of the question remains, which principle do we want our country to hold as more dear than the other? Is security more important then liberty or vice versa? I'd also agree that those parties (Executive or political) that allowed the country to descend to a point where we even have to ask "should we allow torture" is who should be held to account. Obama had it right in his inaugural address that we should reject the false choice. What I'm trying to point out is that the VP is crazy-mad with visions of Big Brother Authoritarianism and I'm bumfuzzled as to why no one is calling him on the carpet.
"The heart of the question remains, which principle do we want our country to hold as more dear than the other? Is security more important then liberty or vice versa?"
I reject the notion that we can't have both as the most important. As much as we say we love liberty, one has to look no further than Pakistan, Afghantistan or Iraq to see that liberty cannot exist without security, and security without liberty is hell.
Ok, I don't want us to talk past each other. I'm not trying to say that liberty and security are mutually exclusive. What I am asking is, how much liberty is it appropriate to sacrifice for what amount of security? When a situation arises where we have to chose, which do we hold as more dear? How much security is enough and at what cost liberty? My point about Chaney is that he obviously values security more than liberty; his position is that it is appropriate to deny citizens for the sake of some measure of improved security of the country. We can measure how much liberty is at stake but we have not been able to measure the amount of security we've gained; questions of that nature get responses along the lines of "We've thwarted many terror plots" or with claims that national security prevents the sharing of the details, which boil down to "Trust us to protect you". I do not dispute that Chaney feels that his actions have made the country more secure, I would dispute how much more secure and whether the actual security gains are worth the liberties sacrificed. For Chaney it is a moot point because to examine the question from a neutral perspective means dealing with the potential for coming to a different conclusion.
Have you read the article in the link? While I have not seen a stampede of people coming to Chaney's defense, I also have not heard many voices denouncing Chaney's extreme position. Why?
Post a Comment