--- "Marvin Long, Jr." wrote: > > 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?"
If I had something clever to add, I would, but I already used Ben Franklin's one-liner about this subject in a previous post, so I'm left with: <nodds head in agreement>. Somewhat Literarily Green Maru ;) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
