Politically Counterliberal |
The underreported views of America's conservative students. |
|
Essays Cartoons Observations Links |
Garrett O'Hara
National Security vs. Individual Rights
10/07/2002
Within the halls of Congress right now is a debate that has been going on for quite a long time. This debate involves those who are resolved when the United States is engaged in military conflict, the demands of national security ought to supersede conflicting claims of individual rights. Why do some people not complain when eighty-year-old grandmothers are strip-searched? Why do some not complain when mothers are forced to drink their own breast-milk? All Americans who believe in our inherent freedom passed down through many generations should stand in negation of this fallacious argument.
Government oppression happens everywhere at every hour. Eighty-year-old grandmothers are strip-searched. Mothers are forced to drink their own breast-milk. Dogs are arrested for protecting their owners from property intrusion. The common citizen is denied the right to defend oneself, whether onboard an airplane or inside his or her own home. What happened to "of the people, by the people, and for the people?" Did anyone heed Benjamin Franklin when he said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"? If government is intended to serve the individual, exactly what happens when government no longer serves the individual, but itself?
This kind of oppression is not justified for anybody concerned. Henry David Thoreau said in Walden, "That government is best which governs least." What we have in America today is much more than the least possible. In order for a citizenry to remain loyal to any government, such a government must entrust in the citizens that they are smart enough, capable enough, and responsible enough to run their own lives with minimum intervention. Instead, our government in its oppression presumes that its people are too stupid, too reckless, and too irresponsible. James Reston once said "In any war, the first casualty is common sense, and the second is free and open discussion." He's right.
Right now America is in the middle of a huge battle just as important as the war on terror. Politicians, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, are waging war on the freedoms we hold so dearly. Certainly, such policies would not create better friendships between America and Europeans on the other side of this argument. However, no friendship in America is more important than that of the individual with the government. Every time the government has disagreed with its own citizens, problems have erupted. Prohibition is only one example. The moment this country became "dry," speak-easies sprung up almost overnight, and organized crime became an American phenomenon. As counterproductive as the simple consumption of liquor may be, criminalizing it caused many more problems than its lawful consumption today.
Such a doctrine instilled into the United States Government will not be beneficial for all concerned. It's not supposed to be, either. Would Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the September 11th hijackers support arming pilots, yet alone arming every single American passenger with any personal weapon of choice? Would a burglar try to rob a store if he knew that the storeowner had a firearm? Certainly, such policies would not be beneficial to such enemies of the state, nor should they be. Simply put, maximum individual freedom allows and encourages the common individual to ensure national security. Certainly, such freedom would have been beneficial to all Americans on September 11th, and it will be beneficial for generations to come if only the government will let it happen.
| Copyright 2003 Garrett O'Hara | All worldwide rights reserved |
