By definition

freedom:

Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century

1 : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

Straight from Webster's dictionary.

The Crux of it

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

The argument

"[T]o those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends."
- U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, December 6, 2001

Slip sliding away

Concerning freedom and security, ole Ben hit the nail squarely on the head. Of course, he and the Founding Fathers understood the concept and ramifications of freedom, having revolted, fought, and died to secure it for their new country. Ben summarized perfectly a major choice that a free people must make in order to actually exercise their freedom.

If I were to paraphase him, I would say that living in freedom requires a citizen to accept the costs and responsibilities which freedom brings. And those responsibilities flow from the very definition of freedom; the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. We are free only as long as we are willing to accept the responsibility for being so. Giving over our personal Rights, Freedoms, and liberties to an enforcement agency of the government is not the way to ensure freedom, it is the definition of the loss of freedom.

Responsibility. Absence of constraint. The Attourney General would have you believe that complaining about lost liberties and freedoms in the face of terrorist activity is unpatriotic. But his logic is flawed and he has placed the cart before the horse. Our nation was literally formed upon the concept of freedom and individual rights. Patriotism is support and loyallty to the principles of our nation, not to a particular means to an end, even if that end is fighting terrorism. To support our country means supporting the ideals from which, and for which, it was created. THAT is patriotism. Allowing additional constraint on choice or actions is contrary to freedom and it is, therefore, unpatriotic.

Accepting the cost

Is the Attourney General anti-American and unpatriotic? Yes and no. He had a difficult job (now given to Homeland Security) and was unable to implement a solution to a complex problem. He was defending himself and his Department and their lack of ability and understanding in the face of a crisis. He probably didn't mean to be unpatriotic, he just couldn't see that the problems he faced were intrinsic to a free society. There are no "solutions" to the "problems" his unpatriotic laws and methods address. The "problems" he saw are a necessary and inseperable consequence of living in a free society. They are the costs of freedom.

It is a simple choice; pay the costs of freedom or give it up. You do not take away freedoms in order to protect the ideal of freedom itself; take enough freedoms away and there's nothing left to protect. You have to take the bad with the good. You can try to minimize the bad, but you can't diminish the "good" in the process. As a free people, we have to simply accept the consequences of our decision to be free and take responsibility for it. We will be more subject to terrorist attacks than a closed, despotic society. Criminals will exploit our freedom and abuse the system. There is no alternative. To make it more difficult for terrorists or criminals, but never impossible for them, we must trade our freedoms for security. Mr. Ashcroft wants you to remain silent about the loss of those very things which make America a free country. He wants you to trade freedom for security.

Think of how many things in society you cannot do, need permission before doing, or are forced to do by law. Every single law that grants permission or requires an action on your part is a loss of freedom. By definition. There are thousands of them and more get put on the books every day.

Where's the line?

I'm fifty years old and have witnessed, sometimes in profound disbelief, the erosion of freedoms for security until I am sick of it. Our Founding Fathers would not recognize this country as the one they founded. The Federal government is out of control, literally; it no longer answers to the States nor the People. A powerful Federal government was a primary fear of the Founding Fathers and the American Constitution was written to specifically limit the authority of the Federal government over the States and the People. The Founding Fathers KNEW that a powerful Federal government would be contrary to the vision of freedom and individual Rights they had for America. Of course, they had little difficulty in convincing the colonial populace of the threat to individuals posed by an out of control government. Not so today. Americans take freedom for granted and are blind to the basic principles and responsibilities of being free. We have already given up a large portion of the freedoms the Founding Fathers secured for us and we continue to give up more on a daily basis. We have gone from punishing those who violate their responsibilities in a free society to imposing necessity and constraint upon everyone in a ludicrous attempt to "ensure" security for all.

We trade away our personal responsibilities and freedoms for false security without a moment's hesitation. We are stupefied by fear of our neighbors and any possibility they may be doing something we don't understand or may not agree with. We all want to be free but don't want our neighbors to be so. We recoil in shock and disgust at terrorist activity on our soil, as we should, but then allow the Federal government to take away more Rights and freedoms without blinking an eye. The loss of Rights and freedoms should generate within the People a greater amount of shock and disgust than any terrorist attack. Alas, it does not, and America happily gives up the ideals and principles which set us aside from every other nation on Earth.

I'm a science teacher. This whole webpage was prompted by the recent decision of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) to regulate model rocket engines and propellants as explosive devices. An inane, utterly stupid decision. But that's what you get when you trade your freedoms for security; emphasis on security, not freedom. Neither the BATFE nor, apparently, Congress, who empowers BATFE to make decisions like this, cares about science, or physics, or aerodynamics, education, a child's curiosity, or freedom. Homeland Security does not care about technology training, where the next generation of scientists and engineers are going to come from, or liberty. We lament the poor showing of American students in math and science while regulating away their chances to become interested and involved. We attack and wage war against oppressive regimes in order to "free" the people, but sit idly by and do nothing as our own freedoms are taken away by an increasingly oppressive government.

Our security infrastructure is concerned only with security; with enforcing and imposing necessity and constraint upon choice and action. And we willingly let them do it. In fact, as a democracy, we impose it upon ourselves because we have come to believe that security is more desireable than freedom.

More and more regulations, fewer and fewer freedoms. When does it stop? When are there too many regulations and we are no longer free? Is there a number? Is there a limit? Should the government have the power to even regulate individual actions at all? To what extent? If you cannot answer these questions, we are already lost. If you do not understand how and why the Constitution was written as it was, there is little hope left and we have become as Ben described; deserving of neither freedom nor security.

Take responsibility

Well, as the old saying goes, "Careful what you wish for, you just might get it." You want more security? Go ahead, ask for it. Give up more freedoms and rights. Give away your responsibilities to a free society, give away the free society itself. It's almost gone now; Congress didn't ask if the HSA was okay with America, they simply imposed it upon us. The Government is so out of control that they see little reason to ask The People what they actually want. Let them go on. You may get a little more security, but you'll never be completely secure. And you won't be free, either. It's a trade-off, as Ben pointed out. It's absolutely disgusting to me since history is so full of stories about courageous people willing to die, to give up all security, to live free. And we are simply giving freedom away.