This Is America: Give Me Liberty, AND Give Me Security!

With the emergence of the latest DC scandal involving the NSA's data mining activities, you can't help but think about the centuries old debate of liberty vs. security. Ben Franklin said that a person who would willingly trade essential liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither. There are dozens of versions of that quote, but the core argument is there. I've had this debate with friends, relatives and coworkers, even strangers in bars. I've actually been on both sides of the fence with this as well. I was a big supporter of the Patriot Act when it was passed. I used to defend it all the time, calling it a necessary measure resulting from the vast new threat from Islamic terrorism. Of course, I was 13 years  old when it passed in October of 2001, and my "arguments" were basically regurgitations of what I heard from politicians and pundits I watched on television. I've grown up a little since then (very little if you ask my wife), and I've become much more concerned with defending liberty than defending politicians and policies. Ten years ago, I would have stood in firm defense of the NSA's PRISM program that came to light last week. I actually would have argued that it's ok to give up some privacy to ensure security, partially out of my lack of knowledge, and partially out of fear. We can't let fear or ignorance influence our judgment, especially where liberty is concerned. Our freedom is precious, and it's slowly becoming endangered. It is a mistake to accept that we must choose either liberty or security. For one, giving up liberty and giving more power to the government, especially this government, never results in the intended effect, and it opens the door to a complete loss of power in the people. Even if you believe that tyranny cannot overtake us (how blind you must be), it's a false argument that where liberty and security are concerned we can never have both, and must settle for some of each. It's 2013, and to resign ourselves to the notion that we cannot have both goes against the very idea of America. We solve problems, especially impossible ones. The problem of liberty vs. security is no different. It requires only that we ask the right questions.

When you limit the options you have for solving a problem, you reduce the probability that the problem will be solved at all, let alone efficiently or effectively. There is a fundamental flaw in our reasoning when we assume a choice between liberty and safety. It's not a matter of one or the other. There are at least 2 more options that all of us should be able to recognize without even thinking about it. We can have one, or the other, or neither, or BOTH. That, my friends, is where the debate should begin (just officially lost all of the Libs). I know I want both, and I'm sure you do too. I reject the notion that I "can't have 100% security and then also have 100% privacy." This is 2013 folks. We have cars that park themselves and NASA is working on a first generation food replicator (yet another Star Trek "fantasy" coming true!). You're telling me that the greatest nation ever devised can't come up with a better plan for national security than data mining our emails and phone calls? I say nay! We can do better, my friends.

Our principles are rooted in liberty. To consciously relinquish the fight to protect that liberty with all our might, just because a better way hasn't been found yet, is thoroughly un-American. Giving up is not what we do. We don't yield to the circumstances that lay between us and our goals. We don't accept the impossible, we achieve it. We don't settle for lesser evils (unless you count voting for John McCain). Instead, we find answers. We dissect the problem, study it, think it out, and persevere until we find the answers we need. Why should the question of achieving security without sacrificing liberty be beyond our capabilities to answer? Why should we settle for the way things have been? We have the ability to make what has been, into what we want it to be.

Before Henry Ford, no one used assembly lines to build cars. A faster, more efficient method was needed, and Ford found it, because he didn't tuck tail and run when faced with a tough predicament. If Americans gave up when things got hard, Bill Gates never would have given us Windows (and we certainly wouldn't have made it past Vista). Twenty five years ago a "cell phone" was the gray brick Zack Morris pulled used to make phone calls in detention. Today, cell phones make calls, play movies, surf the web, and much more with all of the applications out there. If Apple accepted what "is" as all that "can be," those cell phones would still be a foot long and barely able to hold a call (obviously Apple wasn't the only company to advance cell phone capabilities, but I digress). We can do all of this, but when it comes to protecting the nation without sacrificing liberty, our government punts, and says "you can't have both." That's actually a pretty good example of the private sector being better equipped to solve problems than the federal government, but again, I digress.

Americans didn't give in to Britain's tyranny, the evil of Hitler and the Nazis, the USSR's iron curtain, nor the malevolent cowardice that is Islamic terrorism (although, if the President has his way, we'll soon be cowering away from the war on terror...). It's not always conflict with others where we shine. We fight vigorously every day against cancer, HIV, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart and lung disease, and more, never giving thought to the "impossibility" of a cure. We fight hunger and poverty with the single goal of eradication, never accepting "impossible" as the end game. No matter what the problem, we find solutions. We do it because we have the best and brightest, and we refuse to accept that something can't be done. THAT is the definition of American ingenuity.

There is not simply a choice between 100% security and 100% protection of our civil liberties. Anyone trying to convince us that we must choose between liberty and security has ulterior motives that depend upon the existence of this choice. Our government wastes billions every year on bogus research like why lesbians are fat (no BS, they actually spent money on this), and on dance lessons and lavish hotel rooms for IRS employees. How about we put that money toward the productive, responsible cause of devising a way to keep our nation safe and secure without having to encroach at all upon our constitutional rights? It may take some time and a lot of trial and error, but I can tell you this: I would be much more comfortable with the government's current methods for fighting terror and keeping us safe if they were actively and substantially investing in the solution to the liberty/security quandary. I still wouldn't fully approve, but if they were putting in the money and manpower, and regularly showing progress, then I could accept some of their methods as temporary inconveniences. But they won't do that. Our government always defaults to the easiest solution for them, regardless of the effects it will have on individual Americans or the country as a whole. Obama, the NSA, and the status quo politicians in Congress have accepted the choice of liberty vs. security, and have chosen to err on the side safety by default, without ever asking our opinion. They're too lazy and too wrapped up in securing their own legacies to actually give this issue the attention it deserves.

It's worth noting that many Republicans, as well as Democrats, have come full reverse on this issue since the Bush years. Many Dems who were against surveillance under Bush, now support Obama's continuing of the Bush era programs. And many Republicans who were advocates of Bush's policies on security are now lashing out at Obama for keeping them around. You can be sure that ALL who were for it and are now against it, or vice versa, have no interest in resolving this issue. They are purely partisan politicians out to score points and cover their own butts, plain and simple. We must reject their narrow-minded view of the world and demand better of our government. We must insist upon a better solution- a REAL solution. We want liberty, we want security, and we want a government with the fortitude to push the envelope of critical thinking, rather than defaulting to outdated and vexatious methods, which do nothing more than perpetuate an illusion of a safe and free nation. That illusion hides the fact that we do not have enough liberty or security to justify encroachments upon our rights. The government claims we are safe but still free, even though they missed the Fort Hood shooting and the Boston bombing (Benghazi factors in as well, because our citizens were harmed and killed and we had no idea it was coming). It's ironic, because the Obama administration champions "1 life saved" to back their policies, but no one calls them on "1 life lost," usually more, when their policies fail. If you believe that recording our phone calls, storing our emails and tracking our internet habits is the best way to keep us safe from terror, you're not paying attention to what's going on in the world.

I keep hearing politicians talk about the "complexity" of Washington and the world, as if they have tough jobs and we should feel sorry for them. They think "complexity" actually justifies the government spying on Americans. Apparently, they also think we ask too much of them if we demand both liberty and security. I've got news for these folks: you asked to sit in the seat, so you better find a way to take the heat! The word "can't" should not be used like this by our government. Let me explain why.

If my boss asks me to do something difficult or even "impossible," I find a way to do it, because it's never actually impossible. Sometimes I have a gut reaction of "there's no way," but the fact is it's my job, and I'm paid to make things happen, no matter how difficult the task at hand. The government is no different. They work for us, and they desperately need to be reminded of that fact. We need to demand more of them, and accept nothing less than what we ask for. If they can't handle it, they shouldn't be in Washington. If they cry "impossible" they should be fired. Anyone who runs for office and then complains about the responsibilities of that office is looking for power or glory or their name in a history book. They aren't interested in serving the will of the people. Again, the government wastes billions every year. There's no reason that we can't put that money to good use and invest in finding a way to keep America safe without infringing upon our constitutional rights. Forget the mechanical squirrels, give me liberty!

Proponents of the NSA's spy net have been asking questions like "What do u propose we do?" as if that defeats the argument that what the government is doing is wrong. They're also making arguments along the lines of "We don't have a better way," as if that justifies the government spying on us. Neither of these are cogent arguments against pursuing a better way to keep the nation safe. Just because a specific person doesn't know how to fix the problem, it doesn't follow that NO ONE should be searching for a better answer, or that NO ONE has an alternative solution. By the same logic, it makes no sense not to invest in a better solution just because that solution does not currently exist. People who make these arguments, or any argument against achieving a better way, are either purely concerned with the politics of the matter, or they truly can't see past what "is" and into what could be. "Do you have a better idea?" is the wrong question. If we want to enjoy both liberty and security, the question to ask is, "What can we do at home and abroad that will increase the safety of our nation but will not infringe upon the individual liberty of Americans?" Then you go from there. Questions about boarder security will come up, and you would have to debate strong offensive measures against known terrorist and terrorist organizations. You would certainly need to consult the private sector as well, like private security firms. You have the debates, and look for the answers that increase safety without limiting liberty. It's not very complicated, unless you're a politician or bureaucrat. It's just good old fashioned comment sense, something that's long been lost on the federal government.

Our liberty is our most sacred gift. We are the last stand on earth for freedom, as Reagan so aptly put it. Since America's inception, liberty has been slowly eroded away, taken from us over time, tiny piece by tiny piece. If we lose our liberty entirely, we will never get it back. Government rarely, if ever, gives up power once it's been taken from us. That is a central concern for me. We keep letting the government have more and more of our power, and the government never gives any of its power back to the people. The government believes it has the authority to data mine our phone calls and emails. If we don't react, and tell them otherwise, they will keep doing it. And when we do come up with a solution to replace their spy net, they will not let go of their data mining power. They'll cry "precedent" and insist that because they have used this power in the past, they are justified in using it forever. Just because something has been done before, that doesn't make it acceptable (see Enron or Fannie Mae). If we do not stand up now and demand these practices cease, they will keep using it, and it will become a full scale political battle rather than a debate about principles. Worst case scenario, some loon that thinks he knows what's best for us will come into power, start ramming his ideals down our throats and use government agencies and their access to our private information to exploit and intimidate those who dare challenge him (that "holy crap" connection you just made should scare the hell out of you). My point: it's a necessary battle either way, and it just makes sense to challenge the government on this now, while it's still a relatively fresh program, rather than waiting years or decades to push back. If we wait, we will never get back the claim on our privacy that the government has unreasonably seized from us. It's not just a matter of finding a better way folks. It's a matter of maintaining our liberty, now and forever. We should fight this program vigorously, and demand that our government find a better way to do its job. If our words fall on deaf ears, then we must use our votes. If that doesn't work, then we must stand together and organize against them. One thing is certain: allowing the government to retain the ability to record and store our emails and phone calls is not an option.

America is filled with bright individuals who can think outside the box. Yet for some reason, we are constantly being told that our choices are few, and that we must decide between two or three undesirable options. It should not be this way! I refuse to accept a choice between liberty and security, just as I refuse to choose between low price and high quality: I want both! This is  the united states of America. This is the land of freedom, opportunity and choice. I urge you not to give up, not to accept that we cannot be free and also secure. Demand more of our government. Call your representative or senator. Call your governor. Call the president himself! Do whatever you feel you can to fight back against the notion that we must sacrifice liberty for security. We have a responsibility to oppose tyranny, and if we do nothing, we will have only ourselves to blame when we lose the battle. Liberty is life, and without it America will die.

So I ask you: What good will the NSA and the PRISM data mining program be when America is lost to history?

Give me liberty, or give me death!
-Patrick Henry