Security & Liberty: a thought experiment

security

I really like this image.  It neatly sums up my feelings about the current political climate with a minimalist, visceral approach.  But at the same time there’s an implicit premise here which can be used to justify the current regime.  It’s best summed up by one Ed Giorgio:

“We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.’”

[Sources indicate that after the interview Giorgio proceeded to savagely rape a howler monkey before defecating on the Bill of Rights.]

With monsters like this in government, we’re lucky to have clear thinkers like security expert Bruce Schneier out there spreading the gospel.  As he has frequently said:

Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don’t have to accept less of one to get more of the other… Too many wrongly characterize the debate as “security versus privacy.” The real choice is liberty versus control… If privacy and security really were a zero-sum game, we would have seen mass immigration into the former East Germany and modern-day China. While it’s true that police states like those have less street crime, no one argues that their citizens are fundamentally more secure.

Most people won’t just accept a radical statement like that.  After all, the government’s told us that it’s a dichotomous choice, and why would they lie to us?  So with that in mind I’ve designed a little thought experiment to demonstrate why liberty is positively correlated with security, it’s not the inverse.

I seem to remember reading a while back about how Great Britain was going to mandate GPS trackers in your car so that the police could monitor you, and send out automated tickets any time you exceeded the speed limit (I believe there was even talk of installing throttle-governors connected to the GPS).  I can’t seem to find anything confirming that, but with the way things are already going over in Oceania, it wouldn’t be out of place.

So for sake of argument let’s just posit some form of draconian speed-limit enforcement, rather than any specific mechanism.

The immediate effect of this would be fewer speeders; this will probably make the roads safer, and at the very least it won’t make them more dangerous.  So far so good.

But what about the secondary effects of all of this?  Right off the bat the number of violations is going to skyrocket.  A subset of the people fined will no longer be able to afford their increased insurance rates, and this in turn will lead to a greater portion of drivers without insurance…

And then you have the people who will figure out how to avoid being noticed; whether they do it by cutting the GPS out of their car, or by installing some sort of electronic box under the dashboard is irrelevent.  As Ian Malcolm once said, “Nature finds a way.” Now, of course this process of avoiding detection will be made illegal, so these drivers, just like the uninsured, will be Riding Dirty.

With the current system most people speed, but they almost always take responsibility when they get into an accident; even ignoring the moral motivations, it’s generally wiser to take a hit to your insurance premiums than risking a charge of “Fleeing the Scene of a Crime.” But if you’re riding dirty – if a simple fender bender can result in criminal charges – your moral principles are going to suffer some extraordinary pressures.

Thanks to these laws you’re neither safe, nor secure.

Now let’s consider things in the opposite direction.  Here in North America we’re used to being ambushed; speed traps, holiday blitzes, and artificially-low speed limits are the norm – you don’t often get patrol cars pulling you over, its the predations of the traffic cops you have to worry about.  Their measure of success is quantity, not quality of tickets issued.

So let’s say that, instead, the police looked at how safe driving conditions were throughout the city. “There have been a lot of speed-related accidents on Route 9,” or “I was driving along Highway 2, and it seemed to be a little to chaotic to me.” Then, instead of setting up secret ambushes, the cops openly announce where they’re going to ticket, and why.  Allow the drivers to understand what’s going on, and make them an active participant; an ally, not an enemy.  After all, aren’t we all invested in road safety?

When you take away freedoms, when your country goes from being Governed to being Ruled, you wind up alienating a segment of the population.  Censor Hate Speech and you drive it underground, turning its advocates into martyrs; ban drugs and the producers/distributors become criminals, who resort to violence instead of the courts; outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them.  By signing a bill into law, you turn ordinary moral, gainfully employed citizens into anti-state rebels.

Minimum wage proponents love to hold up examples of low-income people, now able to afford X, as proof that their law worked; economists are hard pressed to list all the jobs that weren’t created because the owners couldn’t afford to pay so much for employees.  The Security/Liberty equation is similarly difficult, since the anti-Freedom advocates only look at the easily quantifiable side of the equation – the number of tickets and violations recorded.  But in this case the devil isn’t in the details – it’s in the statistics: “Look at how many drunk drivers our Checkstops have pulled over – what do you mean their net effect has been to increase drunk driving deaths?  Do you seriously expect me to believe that banning guns increases violent crime?”

Not to mention that I’ve only covered the immediate side effects of these laws – who knows what the cops’ll do with this power five years down the road?  You know that the old saying “Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile”?  It goes double for government.

Leo M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Tara Noid says:

    Beware of the REAL terrorists: cops

    Aurini: There’s nothing so terrifying to an honest citizen as the flicker of the cherries behind them.

  2. Tintin's Go-to Lover says:

    I love this point: “Allow the drivers to understand what’s going on, and make them an active participant; an ally, not an enemy”
    Informing the people of how policing is prioritized and keeping the public on the same page as the authorities is a truly genius solution. The police and government truly set up the “public” as their enemy, instead of working together as a whole, and that has severely negative consequences – rebellion in infinite forms.
    All ideas that support this concept would contribute to a better society, especially including government legislation. I believe the public should have a far more concrete role as far as being informed of and deciding for or against new legislation and government practice.
    Lots of good thinking here in this article.

    Aurini: I don’t know when it started to shift – was it in the past 20 years? The past 50? – but increasingly policing has been about attacking whatever segment of the public isn’t ‘normal’ – whether it be protesters, various subcultures, sexual orientations – it’s become about beating down the nail that stick up, rather than serving and protecting.

  3. Andrew says:

    I think this is timely, considering the ban on cellphones while driving in BC and Saskatchewan. Interesting stuff, my friend.

    Could you be setting up a straw man though? Do people really misunderstand the liberty vs security tradeoff? I guess I agree with you, but I don’t know the extent to which people really are that deluded.

    Aurini: I wish you were right, but most people seem to think that the more they get jerked around and pressured by jackboot thugs, the ‘safer’ they are. Hell, I was having an argument last weekend with a guy who was arguing that “We need to balance individual rights with society” – note that he wasn’t talking about, say, taxing for roads, or preventing Person A’s rights being violated when person B steals from them – he was talking about the government’s right to take Ren and Stimpy off the air.

  4. Griffin says:

    Why don’t we just get microchips implanted in us so the gov’t can know where we are at all times and save us whenever we need it?

    It amazes me how afraid people are these days. I’d guess 80% of 25 year old males have never even been punched in the face.

    The only way to be even remotely “free” is to get extremely rich or live a highly illegal lifestyle. Unfortunately, it’s the government’s priority to catch up with both those groups and make them pay in the long run.

    The Gov’t: Give up your freedom and we’ll only fuck you around a little bit.

  5. Tintin's Go-to Lover says:

    Griffin – Now we must get into a philosophical discussion about what it is to be “free”…..or must we….? Let’s not.
    I neither live a highly illegal lifestyle nor am I rich. But I feel free. Some have called that a mirage but I believe I am smart enough to know the difference. I have never questioned my sense of freedom. Ever.
    Sometimes beaurocracy catches up with you, sure. But does that stop me from feeling free? No. Just knots in the web, it sucks for a day. Those things only come along once in awhile. *knock on wood* It’s the poor saps who end up incidentally screwed over by the system or perhaps “made an example of” that bite it I guess. We live in a VERY free place. VERY VERY VERY free. You don’t have to be a badass or rich to feel/enjoy that. I suppose you have to be a willing participant. Perhaps that’s the difference.

  6. Griffin says:

    Fair point TinTin.

    For me it comes down to the slow grind of having simple freedoms stripped away bit by bit. It’s small enough that you don’t really notice it, but over the course of a decade it really adds up how much we’ve let slide. Sure we might be “safer” but in my mind that’s equivalent to the argument that we’d all be safer if we stayed home 24/7 inside a bomb shelter underground, only emerging to restock.

    I’m not arguing that we aren’t free. We are by most accounts, but more that we aren’t free enough. I suppose it’s a pretty good deal for the breeders. Moving out to the suburbs and participating in the baby-making factory is pretty convenient. Bi-laws and all that should exist out there. Still, for the rest of us, life is far more interesting if people are allowed to live.

    Agreeing to give up the freedom to drive everywhere in the name of traffic laws — totally fine.

    Not allowing smoking in bars — pisses me off. If there’s such a huge public demand for a smoke free environment, then capitalism would take care of that. People can open those bars, and they will be successful. But if a private owner wants to allow smoking, then why not? I don’t even smoke, but I don’t appreciate the gov’t trying to take away that option.

    That’s more where I’m coming from.

  7. Tintin's Go-to Lover says:

    Yeah, I remember when they were discussing that and I wasn’t sure why there couldn’t be both smoke-free and smokeless environments, decided upon by the owner themself. That’s a good point.
    Our society is so totally fucking screwed over by politicians who want to make a name for themselves, so they propose “safety” by-laws, and no other politician wants to be known as the jackass that stands up against so-called “safety” laws, so they all end up getting passed.
    We are now ridiculously governed by these rules. Visit smaller countries and the things they are still allowed to do seems SOOO liberal; they get to use their common sense, we’re forced to abide by a plethora of idiotic by-laws. And in reality, the statistics here are no better.
    It’s complete crap. Suffocating! In fact I think it’s the thing I dislike most about Canada.

  8. Lino Di Julio says:

    It’s not really politicians, not per se anyway. Most of our so called societal issues (Smoking, Gun Control, etc.) Are issues that are attacked in the media long before the politicians ever think to put forward a bill. To find the culprits responsible for stripping way our freedom you need to find the people responsible for setting the country’s narrative. Who decides what makes prime time news and what get’s spiked? It’s not politicians, not really anyway, they can hold press conferences all day but it’s not up to them if they get aired, or when.

    The media by contrast is the new church. They have the largest influence over the largest segment of society, so much so that it’s become an institution. We turn to media for information, for entertainment, for relaxation, most every aspect of our life involves the media in some way. We worship, effectively, the institution of the media.

    And what should happen if rail against this solemn institution? They excommunicate you of course, crucify you in front of millions of enthralled viewers, all eager to consume the message being fed them.

    Politicians are, really, victims of the media. Our leaders, elected by popular vote, must appease the institution of mass media or be excommunicated and, while the media does not have the power to remove a man from office it does have control of the opinions of those who do.

    EDIT: One of my favourite drinking buddies, John Stossel, puts it far more succinctly:

    Aurini: I completely understand your point – and as a smoker, this is particularly relevant towards me.

    First off, to define terms, let’s leave the healthcare issue out of it. The current system in the US, where companies are expected to provide healthcare, distorts this issue. So lets stick to a safe, clean, lab-controlled environment where this doesn’t come up.

    So I go and apply at Company A, and during the process they ask if I’m a smoker (presumably if I lie they will issue a civil suit, or fire me, or dock my pay, or something akin to that – no need for government enforcement here).

    I’m certain there are HR people out there who believe that smokers steal an hour of company time each day with their cigarette breaks (I’d point out that, while I was working my last job at the Telco, my cigarette breaks occurred were usually spent sussing out a particularly difficult problem; but that’s neither here nor there). So company A decides not to hire me because I smoke/drink/am female/black et cetera.

    That is their loss assuming I’m equal to my nonsmoking/teatotalling/male/hispanic counterparts in skill. They have narrowed their hiring pool, and are at a competetive disadvantage.

    Now in the current environ they can’t ask me that, no more than they can ask a woman if she plans to have kids. The selection filter is still there, but it’s hidden; many women aren’t hired because companies fear pregnancy – female employment figures have actually decreased since ‘protective’ legislation was put in place, while women who ‘break the rules’ by discussing these issues with HR have an advantage over others, and both parties are able to reach a mutually benefitial agreement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.