It's Irrational To Give Up This Much Liberty To Fight Terror
Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic is exactly right:
The CDC estimates that food poisoning kills roughly 3,000 Americans every year. Every year, food-born illness takes as many lives in the U.S. as were lost during the high outlier of terrorism deaths. It's a killer more deadly than terrorism. Should we cede a significant amount of liberty to fight it?...The U.S. should certainly try to prevent terrorist attacks, and there is a lot that government can and has done since 9/11 to improve security in ways that are totally unobjectionable. But it is not rational to give up massive amounts of privacy and liberty to stay marginally safer from a threat that, however scary, endangers the average American far less than his or her daily commute. In 2011*, 32,367 Americans died in traffic fatalities. Terrorism killed 17 U.S. civilians that year. How many Americans feared dying in their vehicles more than dying in a terrorist attack?
Certainly not me! I irrationally find terrorism far scarier than the sober incompetents and irresponsible drunks who surround my vehicle every time I take a carefree trip down a Los Angeles freeway. The idea that the government could keep me safe from terrorism is very emotionally appealing.
But intellectually, I know two things.
1) America has preserved liberty and privacy in the face of threats far greater than terrorism has so far posed (based on the number of people actually killed in terrorist attacks), and we've been better off for it.
2) Ceding liberty and privacy to keep myself safe from terrorism doesn't even guarantee that I'll be safer! It's possible that the surveillance state will prove invasive and ineffective. Or that giving the state so much latitude to exercise extreme power in secret will itself threaten my safety.
I understand, as well as anyone, that terrorism is scary. But it's time to stop reacting to it with our guts, and to start reacting with our brains, not just when we're deciding to vacation in Washington, D.C. or New York City, but also when we're making policy together as free citizens. Civil libertarians are not demanding foolish or unreasonable courage when they suggest that the threat of terrorism isn't so great as to warrant massive spying on innocent Americans, and the creation of a permanent database that practically guarantees eventual abuse.
Two notes at the bottom of his piece:
* Said Ronald Bailey in a piece published in September of 2011, "a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist."**Everything in this article would be just as true if I published it and you read it the day after the Boston bombing -- but it sure would feel less true, wouldn't it? That's why, if there's a terrorist attack today or tomorrow, it would be foolish for us to react based on our feeling at that moment.
I detest the use of this fallacy - the "compare the risk" nonsense. In MOST cases, the citation has NOTHING to do with the subject risk, not even involving the same affected demographic.
THINK CLEARLY. Demand an assessment of risk/reward, ROI, whatever you'd like, but ANALYZE THE RISK AT HAND. Anything else, you might as well cite choking on candy.
Radwaste at June 10, 2013 11:22 AM
While I agree that the counter terrorism is insane, I dont think food poisoning is a good example because terrorism has economic and global ramifications that food poisoning doesnt
Nicolek at June 10, 2013 11:44 AM
Okay Rad,
Let's look at something in >the ballpark:
Those numbers put it at about 1 in 18,451 that you will be a victim of a homicide and 1 in 27,080 of a gun homicide.
These are purposeful acts. I still don't see a large crowd wanting a surveillance state to stop that.
Jim P. at June 10, 2013 1:20 PM
The word is on the internet that Benjamin Franklin said that those who will give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Patrick at June 10, 2013 1:56 PM
JimP, that's still the "opposite end" of the problem.
The ROI investigation does include intangibles, such the inspiration available to a free people, but the analysis has to start with whether x measure will achieve y result for cost z.
And I'm sure you can find, or already have, those numbers. As an educated fellow, you know they are ranges, not definite numbers.
Radwaste at June 10, 2013 2:02 PM
I heard a good comment from someone... they're supposedly spying on all of us in these ways, and we've got all these pushes for "comprehensive immigration reform" but they're still not actually securing the stupid border.
I'd think keeping people out and keeping an eye on those that come in on visas (and not allowing student visa users to just wander off) would be a little better to get a hold of before you start gathering all this data on your own people.
Miguelitosd at June 10, 2013 3:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz6zS04ekVc&feature=share&list=PL72CB73E3DA157AD6
Jim P. at June 10, 2013 3:35 PM
What's going on is similar to what Nien Cheng wrote about in "Life and Death in Shanghai", when she was persecuted by the Maoists. All her activities, phone calls, friends were in a "folder". All her a acquaintances wer called in for a "little chat" and then report on her. Same exact procedure is going on.
"Why did you talk to so-and-so on this date? We have all the evidence we need."
Creepo.
Stinky the Clown at June 10, 2013 3:51 PM
How many liberties have we given up in the fight against food poisoning?
I mean it's the reason I can't buy non-processed milk...right?
Cat at June 10, 2013 5:03 PM
You are also an educated fellow. The problem is that you are looking at this as the progressive framework dictates; not as a free American with rights dictated by an outside power.
You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The federal government was granted power from the people to do certain things. They were also limited from certain things that they can't do as dictated by the Bill of Rights. That they have overstepped the bounds is evident.
So phrasing the ROI on the collection of every single Americans phone call metadata, email, bank records, IRS records without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause does not make anyone safer.
If it did, there would not have been terrorist event or unsolved murder since 2001 within the United States.
Then add in that in places like Maryland the government is allowed to record every word you say. But as a private citizen you can't record the LEO's. How is that a balance to the citizen?
Jim P. at June 10, 2013 7:12 PM
JimP: again - as with my commentary on the collection of phone data - HOW something is done does not establish anything about the motive for doing so.
Risk analysis has nothing whatsoever to do with the motivation of the analyst. The very same figures will be obtained by anyone observing the scientific process - which includes the premises behind each observation or justification. That is why one could lie about statistics, but not to a statistician.
Radwaste at June 11, 2013 2:41 AM
Rad,
This time you don't get a pass. You are talking about the violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th amendment rights of every American.
There is no rational risk/reward, ROI, or whatever you would like to measure. There is simply "Do or do not." The "motive" of the the implementers or users don't matter.
That the government has done this means that they are far past what should be legal.
And for once in your life, please use a fucking declarative statement, not "I'm just looking from the side."
Jim P. at June 11, 2013 6:31 PM
Leave a comment