57 5.4 – SECURITY AND LIBERTY
SECURITY AND LIBERTY
The U.S. Constitution ensures rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for its citizens. Just how much responsibility the government has to ensure life, liberty, and happiness forms the basis for an enduring and controversial debate about security. Security is defined in a multitude of ways: humans can be economically, physically, or even psychologically secure. One could argue that we must feel secure in order to pursue happiness. We often think of security as a feeling of personal safety, that is, feeling we are safe from bodily injury or attempts to harm our property. Safety almost always equates with security, so the pursuit of safety has become a major concern for policymakers.
For example, should the government regulate food and drug production, car and airplane manufacturers, or mitigate environmental hazards to keep us safe? When citizens cannot trust the source of their food or are unsure if the car they drive uses faulty parts, or cannot fish out of concern for water pollution, they are less likely to pursue the liberties, freedoms, and happiness espoused by the Constitution.
The founders agreed to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution to protect citizens from unnecessary intrusion from a powerful central government. These protections gave the American people the freedom to pursue whatever interests lead to their pursuits of happiness. The Bill of Rights not only protects citizens against government but also lays out a blueprint for the protection of those accused of a crime. In theory, these two concepts exist in harmony; citizens enjoy both security and the liberty to pursue their interests. Problems arise in instances when it becomes clear that citizens must make some concessions to realize either complete security or complete liberty. The truth is that security comes with a cost, which often is liberty. This paradox is one modern philosophers and writers have examined at length.
Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau wrote extensively about social contract theory. In a civil society, a social contract is necessary because a person’s obligations depend on an agreement among all citizens to form their society. Imagine a time before there were laws or governments. Philosophers argue that in this state of nature, devoid of rules or oversight, humans did whatever they wanted and would fight for limited resources and power. In this society, no one was secure. If someone needed food and another person had a cow, the first person would use their brute strength to force the second to give up the animal. Hobbes reasoned that people would rather live in a civilized society than amidst the chaos associated with the state of nature. Rational people, he argued, would give up some of their freedom for the sake of acquiring greater security. The result would be the establishment of a theoretical social contract that forms the rules around which society is based as well as a civil government to enforce them (Hobbes, 1651).
The social contract requires citizens to surrender or limit those liberties they believe are necessary for the government to maintain order and security. “Under such system, citizens retain considerable rights and privileges of citizenship” until they have breached the laws agreed upon through the social contract. When laws are breached, “individual liberties can be taken in order to make all of us more secure” (Birkland, 2019). We can find countless examples of policies that force citizens to choose between security and liberty. Many people would prefer not to wear seat belts in a car, but the law says that we must in order to ensure the safety of drivers and passengers. Before September 11, the federal government did not require security screenings at airports. Anyone planning a flight would simply retrieve their ticket and walk directly to the boarding gate. Now travelers must remove specified items of clothing as well as display before a line of strangers, x-ray images of their suitcase’s contents in order to safely board a plane. Violence on public school campuses has resulted in metal detectors and, in some cases, additional school resource officers. Law enforcement frequently wiretaps the telephone conversations of suspected terrorists. Average citizens, therefore, have surrendered their rights to private phone conversations to ensure safety.
The tradeoff works the other way as well. Not uncommonly, people reject greater security for more liberty. Destructive hurricanes and rising sea levels are a threat to coastal communities. The safest action people could take would be to cease living in coastal areas, but the likelihood of anyone giving up that liberty is doubtful. We have discussed the gun control debate at length in this textbook. On one hand, supporters of gun restrictions argue that ownership should be limited to increase safety. Opponents argue that the liberty to own a firearm must be protected, even if security is compromised. These differing points of view illustrate the compromises and controversy associated with policies that address security and liberty.
