A little liberty : Socratic Rhythm Method

by Matt Barr

A little liberty

Would you give up a little liberty to gain a little safety? You've heard the question before, right? You know you're supposed to answer "no." If we cede even a little liberty we're on our way to despotism. Slippery slopes! If we let President Bush's NSA wiretap U.S. citizens' phones, by 2008 we'll be heiling the swastika and, incidentally, still not be safe from terrorism. Then Bush can cancel the election -- like he so wanted to do in 2004 -- and remain in power for life.

Given this reflexive understanding of the inverse correlation between liberty and safety, it's useful to remember what Franklin actually said:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Everybody gets the gist: You can give up a some liberty, gain some safety, but if you do, you're a schmuck. But the gist is only the half of it. Give yourself an extra-credit civics lesson, and memorize the quote. The next time someone gets it wrong, in the way they so often do, remind them of two things:

It's "essential" liberty. The right not to have Geiger counters outside my mosque checking radiation levels is not an essential liberty. Who gets to decide what's "essential?" You? you ask, to which I say, cut the crap. The fact we might have trouble identifying the line where X becomes Y doesn't mean any idiot can't recognize what's obviously X and what's obviously Y. And slippery slopes? There's no such thing as slippery slopes. I've said it before: You mean the fact the NSA wiretaps phone calls to or from suspected overseas terrorists that originate or terminate in the U.S. means, as night becomes day, that we're bound for slavery? There's nothing at all we can do? Really?

Also, it's "a little temporary safety." Even if you consider a better shot at not getting killed by a truck bomb or not having to hear "your nose culture is positive" a "little" safety, it's not "temporary." The way we deal with the terrorist threat -- not letting them in the country to begin with, preventing them from coordinating with co-conspirators overseas if we accidentally let them in, rooting out traitors who don't need a visa to help launch al Qaeda attacks here -- has to change forever, not for the next six months, two years, or whatever. This reality has no sunset provision.

Well, we have to be more vigilant, because the dangers we face are so much worse, and our government so much more inclined toward fascist theocracy. No doubt Franklin's time was a cakewalk -- the modern world's first attempt at republicanism, where its architects faced not $3 a gallon gas but death for treason against the crown. Big deal!

But the world is different now than it was in Franklin's time in one critical way. The way news and opinion are broadcast, with legions of reporters, correspondents, cameras and sound trucks on 23 or so major international news outlets. The Internet and its blogosphere as a global, unfiltered, unfettered medium and a builder of its own coalitions of like minds. The best guardian of our liberties is ourselves, as Franklin believed was so in his time, too. But it's easier today. Poor Richard's Almanac sold well, but its readership was nothing next to, say, Drudge.

In this day and age, certainly surreptitious oppression by government is possible. Likely, even, even if it's not in the way people expect -- even if it's hamfisted, suffocating laws and regulations instead of jackboots. But there are Bruce Springsteen songs today about oppressions (bad ones, ones that involve 41 gunshots) that would have been surreptitious not so long ago. It took Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein a whole movie to convince Jason Robards to run their story, today everyone spills everything and we sort it out later. There's a far greater chance the government will get caught if it abuses its authority. That's highly dissuasive. An ounce of prevention, as they say.

Don't misunderstand me to mean that we should be grateful for the opportunity to give up "a little liberty." What I'm saying is that we've grown up since Franklin's century. We know what our essential liberties are, we've lived with them for a very long time, enjoying their blessings and, just as often, feeling their stings, and we're not giving them up. We've developed the means to discover and expose people who abuse these new laws, technologically speaking; we've always, being Americans, had the will to go with those means. Franklin also said, when asked what they'd come up with at the Constitutional Convention, "a Republic -- if you can keep it!" We can.

Trackback Pings

Browse books from Amazon.com:
liberty Ben+Franklin

Comments

bujeeboo posted:

You may recall back in '04 when I said that Bush winning re-election was the modern day equivalent of the burning of the German Reichstag in 1933. And let me be clear, it's not about him, it's the de-evolution of the balance of powers and what this war and the constant drumbeat of fear have wrought. Its the rise of the Judicial and the Executive over the Legislative. Those people who voted for Bush because they wanted to be safe more than they wanted anything else are willing participants, and that's all it takes. Republic Interrupted. Like the proverbial frog slowly being boiled, some won't ever figure out when it's time to jump out of the pot.

It's who is to come later that we are handing all this power to that we need to worry about. If you consider (as an example) that Ted Stevens is third in line for the chair currently, you will understand that a certifiable nut-job could be legitimately handed absolute power and the slippery slope will be greased. There is no saving this Republic once it starts because it HAS started and some in this country ARE trying to save it NOW and they are fighting against attitudes of stupid young people who think the government should have some say in what the press reports (remember that survey?) and that some spying is okay because "I have nothing to hide". Where are the old farts in this country who understand, and the people from other countries like South Africa during Apartheid who understand that once we give away the Legislative power in favor of the Executive Almighty, it's damn hard and costly to get it back from a moribund stage, if not impossible. People will cease to even recognize it anymore the longer it's on vacation. Ask anyone who woke up one day and found themselves in a civil war.

No, I am afraid a fragile Republic is like Vanilla Coke. When it's gone, it's gone.

January 10, 2006 2:49 AM

MJB posted:

To pick one (multipart) question out of many sort of at random, who is it that's trying to save the Republic and how, exactly, are they fighting the attitudes of young people? I'm mostly interested in the latter. Are the young people throwing spitballs? Pantsing people?

January 10, 2006 8:59 AM

bujeeboo posted:

Patronizing and belittling me is hot helpful in a discussion. You are, at times, one of the hardest writers to understand yourself. I attempt to give an intelligent response, and I consider myself to be a patriot. I have earned a little more respect than that.

If you think we are so "grown up" from Ben Franklin's time, consider that our future voters - today's young people - have no concept of the gravity of anything in history and hold some of the beliefs that they do (Intelligent Design, government should control the press, can't find Ohio on a map, Nixon apologists, Vietnam War was winnable) are supposedly going to be able to save the republic (should they need to) when they grow up. Apparently, our future grown up citizenry can't even recognize a republic.

The people who are trying to save the Republic now are anyone who thinks unbridled executive power is akin to suspension of our civil liberties, and there are plenty screaming about it. It doesn't have to do with any one President, or how much we have "grown up". It just ain't America. Period.

Those people who are against the redefinition of Executive power will fail by the way, which was my point. Everytime this administration crosses a line, the apologists come out of the woodwork
crying "we need to be safe". As long as such people exist, the rationale to take away civil liberties will be there. They chose the current president. The camel's nose is in the tent. That's how it works. All we need now is ummm... let me think... a judge! Yes, a judge to codify it all. Hmmm, where can we get one of those? (wry smile)

By the way, you keep citing the same argument about the geiger counters at the mosques. Please also consider some other examples, like spying on Quaker Peace Meetings and marking them in a database as a "threat". The creation of lists of Americans IS the slippery slope and you are old enough and mature enough to know it. Do you have complete faith that the citizenry will always think making a list of "Un-Americans" is a bad thing? I sure as hell don't. Fox News, the Disseminator of Red Meat to the Dopes, sees no problem with it.

January 10, 2006 12:19 PM

MJB posted:

So everybody -- a/k/a "anyone who thinks unbridled executive power is akin to suspension of our civil liberties" -- is trying to save the Republic. And yet you persist in insinuating only an enlightened few care enough to avoid tyranny.

I bet -- I don't have to bet, actually -- I know more school age children than you do, and frankly, the next generation is no dumber than ours, or the one before it. True, they learn entirely too much about recycling and environmentalism, but learning's not a zero sum thing. My stepdaughter just did a scenario writing exercise involving the First Amendment and though she was too concerned about her grade to take my advice and write about how political correctness stifles free speech, she's well on her way to good citizenship. Her friends are generally smarter than mine were at her age. The only reason my father could find Ohio on a map when he was her age is that he went to a Catholic school.

My point is that the current talking points about threats to our liberties are overblown, and if I can't cite an example of a line over which the administration has crossed that outrages me besides locking a citizen up incommunicado in a brig for four years (search "Padilla" on this site, if you'd like a refresher) it's not because I'm a red meat eating dope, it's because outside of New York Times subscribers there's simply nothing to get spun up about.

This post is the second time I've mentioned the radioactive mosque deal. The first was when it was first reported. I haven't got the foggiest idea who Quaker Peace is or whether they're a threat to anybody.

January 10, 2006 12:54 PM

bujeeboo posted:

Okay, well let me give you this then for starters:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

I am saying there are fewer and fewer Enlightened Few. That trend will continue. You and I agree that we have the technology to expose the people who break the laws. I am saying I have no hope - ZERO - that the citizenry will save something that is insideously being wittled away while no one can decide on whether or not it's even a big deal. The media weighs every report on its value to a paricular political base (in that ever annoying penchant to "balance" every issue). Some things are just wrong, and you can see the confusion of the American people by the poll numbers on the spying thing. Many people just don't know what it means. Give it a few days and the various media (and Drudge) will decide it for them. That's how stupid people are. And I know you well enough to know that you are not a Fox News Carnivore. You may just be more optimistic than I am.

Given that it is your blog and I have decided that I will give you the last word on your blog, as I am but a guest here (and grateful for the opportunity to be heard, I might add), I won't argue too much about the bias that does creep slightly into your last response about what kids learn. Those are decidedly conservative culture war issues. My examples of poorly educated citizenry address basic knowledge about how our government works and what historical events have taught us (or not, as the case may be).

But let me ask this: what do you think any of us could actually do to save the republic from tyranny if the Legislative branch can't impeach or censure or regulate the Excutive (or won't due to conformity of with the Executive), the Judicial goes on to codify the power of the Executive, and the media can't seem to expose the misdeeds a la Woodward and Bernstein (those days died after Monica's Blue Dress). I mean, IF it were truly happening, do you truly believe simply casting a ballot would end the mess and restore the Republic?

I guess I am cynical.

January 10, 2006 2:51 PM

MJB posted:

Some things are just wrong, like two people voting for Gregg Jefferies for the Hall of Fame, but the spying thing isn't one of them. Even if you assume everyone polled who didn't demand Bush's head on a platter is confused, you seem to also be saying I, for example, can't decide if it's a big deal or not. I have decided. It's possible that everyone's judgment but yours is clouded, but a more likely possibility is that it's just not as apocalyptic as Risen's book publicist is trying to make it out to be.

The idea that media is powerless to expose presidential misdeeds is demonstrably false. To the extent you're insinuating nobody in the media wants to, that's simply indefensible.

January 10, 2006 3:15 PM

Rhymes With Right posted:

And let's not forget that, in the Lockean framework which is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, "the people" voluntarily surrender a portion of their liberty in forming the social contract that brings government into being.

January 12, 2006 5:48 AM

Post a comment

Due to comment spam, please enter the five-digit security code along with your comment. I'm sorry for the hassle.



real quick liberty law blogs music movies sports supreme court constitution home