Don’t look to government for security

There’s a lot of talk about security recently. It isn’t just tied to physical security either, with issues like terrorism, but there is a big issue with financial security as well, with issues like the Enron debacle, and companies cooking the books.

Now these are real issues. No one will say these are good and desirable things, and I doubt anyone will deny that they are serious threats to us.

I would like to discuss the response to these threats. Let’s start with the physical threat of terrorism.

I find it disturbing that the most common cry is for better security on our borders, with organizations like the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and with nationalizing the security in the airports.

While it may seem natural, especially with airport security, and I believe the people behind such measures have honorable intentions; it’s the unintended consequences that scare me the most.

I had a friend that went to Argentina. There was a very oppressive dictator in power at the time. He mentioned the first thing he saw when he got off the plane there was military in the airport providing “security.”

Now I’m not saying that our current regime is a dictator, or very oppressive, but the precedent has been set. A very disturbing precedent.

Another response is the so called, “Patriot Act.” This gives an incredible amount of power to organizations like the FBI to investigate and track down people suspected of terrorism.

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Think for a moment. If the FBI or police department tacks on the word terrorist to their suspected charges, suddenly you begin to lose many of your rights? Suddenly it’s easier for them to tap your phone?

It seems too easy for someone to tack on the word terrorist on any suspected dissident, even if the dissident was as peaceful as Martin Luther King Jr. We’ve suddenly moved from hunting terrorists to secret police.

In the financial realm, the Security and Exchanges Commission, (SEC) is asking for more funding and more power to investigate companies’ books.

They want power to audit some company’s books with no reason whatsoever and they want to be able to do it frequently. Anyone had to live through an IRS audit, back when they were performing random audits? Even honest people feared them.

If these solutions have such terrible side effects, what is a better solution?

I’d like to take a lesson that the shoe bomber learned when he tried to light the fuse on his bomb. It wasn’t the police or FBI or sky marshals that stopped him, it was normal ordinary people like you and me.

These laws seem to pass over one of the biggest strengths in our country. The moral character of individual people.

I can hear the arguments already. The people perpetrating these crimes don’t have much moral character. You are correct, but they hardly work in a vacuum. How many people helped in the shredding of documents with Enron?

If only one of them had spoken up, and I think if there had been an option for that, then it is likely that the Enron mess could have been avoided.

Even if the S.E.C. had audited them it was likely they would have gotten the same cooked books and not much information to prove them false.

That being the case, how would more oppressive laws on all the innocent companies actually prevent the problem?

Security cannot be found in a government, it can only be found in yourself. Does that mean that we should all go out and get martial arts training, or buy an arsenal of weapons? No, I’m not.

Benjamin Franklin said not only that those who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for security will lose both, yet they deserve neither. Are we losing our right for freedom?

Joseph Terry, The Arbiter

Related Posts:

1. Boise State hosts Homeland Security Conference
2. Social Security numbers for sale
3. Ridge begins job as head of new Office of Homeland Security
4. Airlines: Tight security, tighter legroom
5. Homeland security benefits all Americans