A question has been bubbling in my mind since 9/11/01. How much risk should civilians be willing to endure for the sake of personal freedom? Lots of Americans believe, for instance, that the freedom to bear arms is worth the risks entailed.
Now, liberty-loving (and commerce-loving) citizens of the world have been opening their societies, lowering borders, and learning to try not to judge other individuals and societies unless absolutely necessary for many decades now. Periodically we find this tendency at odds with the need to feel safe from those who don't share our cultural interests and values, as now. A common refrain in such times, as miltary thinking and security are on the rise, is that "freedom is not free." As a rule this means, "Be prepared to sacrifice by joining and/or supporting the armed forces." Also, "Don't neglect to honor the sacrifices of those who already serve." There is a price to be paid in treasure and blood for our civil liberties. But usually the phrase emphasizes the role of the soldier and the obligation of citizens to be prepared to serve. Soldiers are obliged to be prepared to die...but what about citizens themselves, as citizens? In a world where enemies exist, an open and porous society entails risk by definition. Bush, Ashcroft, & co. have asked us to allow them to radically tighten things up for the sake of our own safety. I'm not prepared to say that no security measures are justified, but presumably I gain something wonderful by participating in the open and porous society. Are those gains worth the risks? Am I prepared to die, say, for the rewards (an enriched culture) that presumably flow from granting liberties to those who might do us harm? Should I be? I strongly suspect I should. "Freedom isn't free" cannot just mean that soldiers must sacrifice for our way of life and that we should be prepared to support those who command them. Freedom is risky by definition. Participating in an open society in a state of freedom must mean, in some small degree at least, being prepared to be a target for those who don't like the form one's freedom takes. To be free, safety must by definition take a back seat to liberty...mustn't it? Anyway, when Bush & Co. insist that they not be hemmed in by too many rules that would hamper their ability to protect us, my only response can be, "Just how much protection should I really desire from these men? If I don't want them to protect me from my neighbor's right to drive a car or own a gun, how much protection do I really need from the rare terrorist nut?" Marvin Long Austin, Texas "Two bits, four bits, six bits, a peso. If you're for Zorro, stand up and say so!" _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
