Replies

It's honestly my feeling that a healthy society needs to swing gently between "a little too much police power" and "a little too much individual freedom" to stay on course. I think we're nearing the part of the swing that produces "a little too much individual freedom" and are close to taking a gentle swing back. No, I don't want things to swing too far toward the individual liberty side because I don't want to see the backswing toward police power that would result.

The reason things swing is because there are obvious flaws with each state and people swing in one direction as a cure for the other problem until the way they are swinging becomes an even bigger problem. Libertarians like to assume that one should never sacrifice liberty for security but civilization, itself, was essentially making that sacrifice. Even libertarians concede that people must restrict their liberty so that it does not infringe on the basic rights of others, thus sacrificing liberty for security. What's really the issue is finding the balance between the two and I don't think that's ever a stable state. Even if we achieved the libertarian Nirvana of individual freedom, the problems it would produce would create pressure toward more restrictions, which is why we wound up with all of those restrictions in the first place.

"It's honestly my feeling that a healthy society needs to swing gently between "a little too much police power" and "a little too much individual freedom" to stay on course. I think we're nearing the part of the swing that produces "a little too much individual freedom" and are close to taking a gentle swing back."

I agree completely, and would point to the 1960s and 1970s to show just that. The cycle completed with the 1974 Privacy Act, which struck back at the many abuses of police power in the years prior. Following the passing of that law, other laws opened some doors once more when police began to complain that they were unable to go after real criminals because their hands were tied too tightly. Like you, I worry when things swing too far in any one direction. There's always the chance that the swing into 'more police power' can be the last movement as predicted in Orwell's 1984. I'm very conscious of literary works like that whenever I hear about someone in government trying to increase government or police powers. While I rarely meet a cop I don't like, I do have an inherent distrust of my government. I, for one, think that's very healthy. :-)

"Even libertarians concede that people must restrict their liberty so that it does not infringe on the basic rights of others, thus sacrificing liberty for security."

The real out-there wacko absolutists would probably disagree. Personally, my view with the 'no liberty for security sacrifice' thing is that we should never eliminate or suspend our core values simply to gain a bit more security. For instance, suspension of any part of the Bill of Rights, while it may be more convenient during the WoT, would most certainly push too far for my tastes. That said, during time of actual invasion, on fields of actual and tangible combat, I do absolutely agree that Martial Law is necessary. I say that because it is under those circumstances that the Constitution has no enforcable authority, and thus must be replaced by one which is enforceable. Ex Parte Milligan dealt with this nicely.