The United States government exists to serve its citizens. At a macro level, the government’s purpose is to ensure that the citizens of today and those of the future enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are inherent trade-offs in carrying out that charter. Sometimes the government must limit the pursuit of happiness of a current generation in order to ensure it at some level for future generations (raising taxes to pay down the national debt, for instance).
These trade-offs exist in the war on terror (or war on tara as President Bush calls it). What is concerning is the apparent oblivion of the administration to this fact. The preservation of life has become the seemingly singular focus at the expense of liberty and happiness. In some cases, it appears that decisions that have significant negative impacts on liberty are being made for small or negligible increases in security against terrorism.
A funny example is the case of a geologist who was prevented from taking a specimen onto a plane because it was a dual-use item. It is actually only funny until one considers that the extensions of this could apply to practically anything that is carried onto a plane.
A recent item in the news was the appeal by the Bush administration of the ruling against the domestic wiretapping program. The National Security Agency has been spying on international phone calls involving parties within this country without obtaining a warrant. I have been unable to find a copy of the appeal online so all I have is this quote from it in a Reuters article: the judge's ruling “dismantles a tool that already has helped detect and disrupt al Qaeda plots”.
This quote illustrates my point nicely. Any argument for an action that deprives citizens of their freedom should discuss the significance of this effect against the benefits to the security of the nation. I have not seen this kind of careful thinking and analysis coming from the government. Instead, we are suppose to trust the administration's statements about the effectiveness of domestic spying program when it has not proven itself to be trustworthy. We are prevented from observing any rational discourse occurring concerning the trade-off between rights and safety. There are plenty of ways to disrupt al Qaeda plots. They must be debated though as to their effects on liberty before implementing them. The objective function to be optimized contains more than just a single independent variable. (Oops, how did that get in here?)
Comments
Fear propels us all into courses of action which otherwise we might not consider. Did you know that fear takes literally no time (is not measurable)to be processed by the brain and endocrine system, but that pleasure takes upwards of 3 seconds.
We move, think, breath, love, plan differently when fear is the motivator. There is nothing inherently wrong with this either. Fear is an instinct necessary for survival. Without it we would stand in front of the bus until it mowed us down. Fear is proper and good when there is something to fear. And we need to see it and hold it as such.
When it is pervasive and not always purposeful (or, better said, well-resolved), it is damaging both to individuals and to cultures. When adrenalin is released but never ordered to stand down, the system wears out. It becomes numb. Fear must be a prelude to proper action when the fear is predicated on a proper threat.
There are proper threats in our world. There is no doubt about that, but people don't know what to do except eat more, buy more, and think less. Our leaders have done little to guide them. We haven't even closed our borders or at least put a simple semi-permeable filtration system on them. If we are afraid and are prevented or unable to do anything about it we become "bent" and distorted.
There's an amazing book I just started reading that a friend turned me on to that deals with this. It's fiction (and apparently manages to be non-partisan) and deals with Viral Fear. It's called THE NEXT OSAMA (J. Acosta) and just traces the small lives of four major characters as they intertwine in a series of mischances, mistakes, and tragedies.
What should we be afraid of? How much so? When can we sound the all-clear? What should we do when there is something to fear?
When a client of mine tells me they are afraid of intruders, our first step is to deal with reality: Have you closed your windows? Shut and locked your doors? Do you have a dog? Is your phone near your bed?
We address the basics. If you're afraid of attack, avoid dark alleys. Basics. Then we move on to the more complex task of unraveling the layers. But first the basics. Always.
Reality never bites. It rules.
D
Posted by: Dan Dern on Monday, October 23, 2006
And doing something, whether it is logical or not, and doing it confidently will assuage the fear of some portions of the general public. It might also lead us to have more confidence in the government than is deserved.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Monday, October 23, 2006