While reading Doctorow's Little Brother, I was reminded of a Ben Franklin quote:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
This quote seems to embody a recuring theme throughout this novel. As the book progresses, the Department of Homeland Security takes more citizens' liberties away in the name of "National Security". Marcus, like Mr. Franklin, was not willing to give up his liberties on account of additional security, and fought to keep his liberty.
Would you be willing to say no to all the security enhancements in the name of liberty? Or if not, when is it ok to relinquish some of your freedoms for additional security?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An interesting quote, to be sure. The college student in me says "liberty or death! even to the point of anarchy and what not!" As I really begin thinking about it, I realize what a difficult question it really is. When I think of my neices, nephews, future posterity, aunts uncles sisters brothers I think that ya, we need a little security here. But I think, as this book proves, security can be a slippery slope. You start out with some freedoms given for security, then a little more, pretty soon you have given a lot. At this point, I have no idea where I would set the equilibrium between security and freedom. I think I need a little more experience before I can decide.
ReplyDeleteGreat question. In the book, DHS obviously went completely overboard in their "security measures", tracking people using their FastPass, using gait recognition software, etc. I think all of these things instill a feeling of fear rather than safety. If there was an attack on the US tomorrow and all of these things were implemented, I would be more fearful and worried because the government felt that we were in such danger that these steps were necessary. I guess this ramble is my way of saying that I would rather have liberty than security. Blissful ignorance has always seemed to be more enjoyable than fear.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer liberty over security because quite honestly, the "security" offered is either decremental--spying on kids via XBox--or false--where was that security when the terrorists blew up the bridge? The main problem with security is that it lulls people into a false sense of safety when all it does is weaken them. Better to not have a safety net, fall on your butt, and learn to be more cautious than to never learn.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem near impossible to draw a line between security and liberty. Everyone wants to feel like there is nothing to worry about, but the price of total security would mean that someone else would be controlling everything in your life. People cannot handle that because Americans in particular love their free will. But at the same time we do need at least A LITTLE bit of security.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is that we face a dimensioning return on investment when beefing up security. That first time a city adds security measures they probably can deter a large amount of crime and make everyone feel safe. But when you begin to add more security measures these measures only catch a fraction of the crime that the previous measures catch. The additional security is not as valuable as the initial security. Also with the addition of cameras, gait detectors, and RFID readers everywhere the once believed form of protection now seems like its not working for you, but it's out to get you.
I think it would be ideal to have at least a minimal amount of security measures in place, but I see Ben Franklin's point. It would be much easier to just retain your liberty. If you give security an inch, what is to stop them from taking a mile?
I believe liberty over security. Or I would like to say I believe that. However, for every person here that said they chose liberty over security. How many of you were in support of the patriot act on September 12th 2001? Most likely atleast 90%. I know I was.
ReplyDeleteSecurity is only to take over liberty with the proper footwork. There is no reason to monitor every single person doing every single thing. Monitor people that have a reason to be possibly involved with crime. Not children, not the average worker.
However, it is to have a limit, a point. The DHS left the point behind in this book long long ago. However, my response does not completely nor accurately answer the question as that question is a very very hard question to answer.
I would put liberty over security, but not by much. I don't want to government knowing everything I do and everywhere I go, but it is their job to protect us. They should be able to investigate people who they have strong reasons to be suspicious about, but not random people or for stupid reasons.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be a cynic, but I think the Yiddish Policeman's Union has rubbed off on me a bit too much.
ReplyDeleteI think the probably with embracing freedom or liberty lies with people. People will ultimately abuse their freedom, as will the people who initiate security measures to curtail such abuses of freedom by said "people".
In the end, though, I'd much rather have too much freedom than too much security. Too much freedom usually results in intra-personal harm, i.e, people harming people as a result of a lack of security, whereas an excess of security hurts an entire society, and one could argue the world given the increasingly global climate we find ourselves in.
So, basically, give me liberty or give me death, but if you give me death then let me choose the means of death as well, because I really do enjoy liberty.
I'm all about some liberty, but I think that the best way to achieve a balance of liberty vs security is not to draw the line somewhere between anarchy and gait-detectors, but rather to have two opposing forces each vying for the opposite ends of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteWhile organizations like the ACLU, NRA, NAACP are often criticized for being too radical, it is their radical view that keeps America stable. For every Marcus, there is a DHS officer, and many people in between who feel ill toward both ends of the civil liberty spectrum.
In that way, America creates a reasonably steady, well balanced stance on civil liberties that makes radical change like what the DHS did in Little Brother difficult at best.
I occupy a place pretty far on the civil liberties side. Paradoxically, I hope the stalemate between people like me and people like Dick Cheney lasts.
And on Lazer's note, I would much rather die of too much freedom than too much security =)
ReplyDelete