The aphorism "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" is heard in many variations. It has enough degrees of freedom to allow its use by conservatives, liberals and libertarians in various situations. It's usually stated without the important modifiers, "essential" and "a little," in order to make it more powerful. It is also almost always incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. An implication of the dictum is that liberty and security are two adversaries in a zero sum game. I'd like to explore this concept.
First let's look at an individual as the system under consideration. If a pie chart represents the individual's liberty, we can examine two extreme cases and then those in between. If the entire pie is liberty, then the individual can do what he (or she) wants only subject to the laws of gravity, conservation of energy, biological limitations, etc. There is no one to impose any restrictions. This person in total liberty can eat what he wants to eat, go where he wants to go, and say what he wants to say. He also has no security. If the iiberty pie plate is virtually empty, the person is in bondage. The survival of the slave is totally dependent on the security provided by another.
Parenthetically, it's important to note that with respect to liberty, the terms "freedom of" and "freedom from" are totally different. For example "freedom of speech" indicates liberty to say what one will. On the other hand, "freedom from fear" indicates not liberty but security from undesired actions of others. In our pie chart, every slice of security requires the sacrifice of a slice of liberty, if this is a zero sum game. If one is a caveman, spending the night in a cave may provide security, but this comes at the sacrifice of the liberty to be wherever you will. In communal life, the security provided by traffic signals comes at the sacrifice of one's liberty to drive in whatever manner one wills. (I'm not going to escalate the examples to the level of federal government, since this would risk a partisan discussion.) Remember that I'm saying that liberty versus security is a zero sum game for an individual not averaged over society in general.
The next step is to consider two liberty-security pies representing two individuals interacting. The situation gets vastly more complicated, because new elements are added which can "eat up" liberty. Examples of such factors are conscience, responsibility and cooperation. The question in my mind is whether this is still a zero sum game.
9 comments:
Joel: You are correct when you say you suspect liberty vs security is not a zero-sum game.
As my PhD advisor (Howard Pattee) pointed out, establishing standards sets the stage for further freedom to create. An example is the standardized DNA code used by all life on Earth (with some minor exceptions). It took billions of years for that code to become standardized, and that set the stage for multi-celled animals and, eventually primates and humans.
Another good example is standardized language. Absent standard English spelling and pronunciation (admittedly imperfect: cough, enough, through, ...) we would not be able to communicate clearly with each other. Absent standardized TCP/IP, your Apple Computer would not be able to communicate with my IBM PC, etc.
You cannot have liberty without a measure of security. "Your freedom to swing your arms ends exactly where my nose begins!" The useful exercise of liberty requires a somewhat restrictive civil society. You cannot have a civil society without reasonable restrictions on liberty.
Ira Glickstein
I agree with you, Ira. However, an interesting aside (to me) is as follows.
Ira. quoting a famous supreme court justice I think, said: your freedom to swing your arms ends exactly where my nose begins!"
In fact you don't have the right to swing your arm in this manner. Even if you don't touch my nose you are guilty of assault. (If you touch my nose, that's battery.) With respect -Joel
Continuing: I guess I wasn't clear. I DO believe that liberty-security may be a zero sum game for an isolated system consisting of one individual. If you'll grant me that point, then I'm ready to go on to look at two individuals.
The case of two individuals immediately establishes another dynamic and a number of interactions that are not present in the single isolated individual. One of these interactions is "obligation." The obligation may be friendly, fanilial, negotiated, contractual or moral. (Maybe there are others I haven't thought of.) If that's the case, I'd like to explore whether or not the sum of liberty, security and obligation for the combination of two individuals is fixed or there is some other relationship. I have no idea where this is going. I'm just exploring Franklin's dictum.
OK Joel, let us explore multiple individuals, say me and my neighbors.
Yesterday I returned to the house with my kayak atop the car. I could have moved it to its storage space in the garage myself, as I have in the past. This is a tough one-man job and risks scratching my car. A neighbor saw me return and came over and helped. With two people this task is far easier than with one. Let us say he and I each exerted five percent of the energy and time it would have taken me to do the job alone.
Thus, with his cooperation, I was ahead 95% and he behind 5%, a net gain of 90%.
In the past I have helped a neighbor with his computer. Say I can do that at 5% the time and energy it would have taken him to do it himself or hire someone. So, with cooperation, he was 95% ahead and I was 5% behind, 90% net gain.
In the past a neighbor watched my dog and I took him and his wife out to dinner. I could have put the dog in the kennel at considerable expense and less comfort. So, with cooperation, he was 5% behind and I was 95% ahead, 90% net gain.
Each of these transactions, which you and I and our neighbors and friends do with each other are certainly not zero-sum. One person loses a bit of time and effort and the other saves much more. Each transaction nets the pair 90%
These relationships can be thought of as a kind of "security". When I need help they will be available, making me more secure, and vice-versa.
Of course, each transaction creates an obligation in the person who has benefitted. That brings us to liberty. I may be in the middle of my afternoon nap when a neighbor calls for help with his computer. I have to get up and dress and go over there. My neighbor was mowing his lawn when I needed his help. He had to interrupt his task to help me. When my neighbor took care of my dog he had to interrupt whatever he was doing and come over a couple times a day for a quarter hour.
Thus, my "liberty" and theirs is impacted negatively by our "obligations" to help increase each other's "security".
But it is not a zero-sum game. Each time I give up 5% of my liberty, a neighbor gains 95% in his security, and vice-versa. It is a "virtuous circle" where we each increase our bank of "obligations" to each other, paying a small percentage on each "dollar". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_circle_and_vicious_circle)
That is why, given proper socialization, we humans are wired to enjoy helping family, friends, neighbors ... and even strangers, so long as it takes minimal sacrifice of "liberty" on our parts. Our emotional system gives us that "good feeling" of having helped someone else. That is the "ca-ching!" in our "obligation" bank, denoting an increase in our "security".
Thus, taken literally, Franklin's ""Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" may be wrong.
But, as Joel pointed out, what Franklin actually wrote was: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Note the words:
"ESSENTIAL liberty"
"a little TEMPORARY safety"
Ira Glickstein
Here again, I can't disgree with you that cooperation increases productivity. However, I personally need to go slower when I'm looking at fundamentals. (That's been my claim to fame.) Before examining anything so complex as transactions and negotiations, let's look at a much simpler case, so we can see at what point each factor kicks in. Consider a totally free human as one system and a totally free bird as another. The man then captures the bird and puts it in a cage. The birds liberty is now virtually zero. If we want the combined system to be at stable equilibrium, the two systems must be able to continue ad infinitum. This means the man must forsake some of his liberty in order to do for the bird what it cannot now do for itself. He must fetch appropriate food and water. He must provide a mate in order to continue the species. He must also maintain the enclosure and remove the droppings. I don't know how to put numbers on these actions, but it would seem that the bird has lost ALL of its liberty while the man has lost a fraction of his liberty. Perhaps, time is part of the appropriate measure. The bird is under imprisonment !00% of the time. The man is imprisoned by his tasks for only a small fraction of the time. The total time at liberty for thhe combined man and bird has decreased due to the capture. On the other hand, the security of the bird has increased while its liberty has decreased. The man's liberty has decreased and his responsibility (or obligation) has increased. So, apparently, we must factor "obligation" into the equation. There are no negotiations between man and bird, yet an obligation exists by way of an equilibrium constraint. If the man doesn't live up to his obligations, the bird dies or degenerates.
Aloha for now -Joel
You came up with a very good example.
A man puts a bird in a cage and assumes the obligation to care for it.
By your reckoning, the bird's liberty is virtually zero, but the bird has gained some security.
The man has lost a fraction of his liberty because he has to care for the bird.
If we (somewhat arbitrarily) put numbers on it, say the bird has only 10% of it's past liberty (it can move about in the cage and perhaps the man lets it fly in one room once a week). In the wild, the bird could have been attacked by a cat or a fox, etc. In the cage, if cared for, it will die of old age. So, it has gained, say 50% more security.
Thus, the bird has lost 90% of its liberty in return for 50% added security. The net for the bird is -40%
The man has lost 10% of his liberty because he has to care for the bird. You might say his security is unchanged, but the bird might alert him to an intruder or a fire and thereby increase his security, say by 10%. If he gets a mate for the bird and they have chicks, he could sell them and further increase his security by another 10%.
By these numbers, the man is 10%ahead, having lost 10% of his liberty and gained 20% of his security.
So, the net-net, is bird -40% and man +10%, for a net loss of 30% for the pair. That would make it a negative-sum game! (Of course, we are assuming the value of a bird's liberty and security are equal to that of a human. If we assume the bird is worth only 10% of a human then the net-net loss is only 3%)
**********************
But, why did the man put the bird in the cage in the first place? He did it for his pleasure! The bird is a companion of sorts and its singing is pleasant and so on. (That is why I care for my dog with considerable time and expense. He has given me unmeasureable pleasure, far in excess of my investment.)
So, if the bird has increased the man's pleasure by, say 50%, that means the net-net is +20%. If the bird is worth 10% of a human, the net-net is +56%.
**************************
Of course all these numbers are arbitrary and anyone might put different numbers on it and get a net-net that is positive, negative, or even zero-sum.
You might say that from the point of view of the bird it is always negative to trade liberty for security. However, if we consider chickens, which have been bred such that they could not survive at all in the wild, it could be positive. Chickens are well cared for from the time they are chicks until they are slaughtered for food. They never have to worry about predators tearing them limb from limb or about hunger. They are humanely killed in the prime of their life so they don't have to suffer old age and painful death.
A wolf might look at a dog and say "I'd never trade my liberty for the security of food and shelter!"
The dog might reply "I'm well fed and cared for by my loving master. All I have to do is wag my tail and lick his hand. I have 100% security and all the liberty I want. I'm living the life of Riley while you don't know where your next meal is coming from."
Ira Glickstein
Ira said:
You might say that from the point of view of the bird, it is always negative to trade liberty for security. However, if we consider chickens, which have been bred such that they could not survive at all in the wild, it could be positive. Chickens are well cared for from the time they are chicks until they are slaughtered for food. They never have to worry about predators tearing them limb from limb or about hunger. They are humanely killed in the prime of their life so they don't have to suffer old age and painful death.
Joel responds: We seem to have come full circle. In "Brave New World" the people are like the chickens you describe. They are in their prime until they die. They are kept in perfect health and bred to fulfill the needs of society. Only John the Savage treasures the role of the wolf along with life's vicissitudes. Rationally one would like to have the option of being chicken or wolf or dog. Society doesn't seem to be able to accommodate that. Although, in a sense that used to be the case in the United States when the states were more independent and one could select the type of life one wanted to live just by migrating from one state to another. One could live in the safety and security of Boston or on the wild frontier of the West. Less choice by definition means less liberty.
With respect -Joel
It seems to me that we have to return to Joel’s original Posting: Liberty and security and the aphorism "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" is heard in many variations. This remains a zero-sum game.
Once you deviate in your discussion to explore the interaction between two individuals to explore “obligation” you are not discussing essential liberty nor are you discussing safety, rather you are considering freedom of choice and interactions of an individual with his environment.
Joel also said: “I DO believe that liberty-security may be a zero sum game for an isolated system.” I add the aphorism stated above applied to the United States so we must consider the United States as a closed system for this discussion
Let’s remain on this subject and explore “essential liberty” and “temporary safety”.
In our society what are essential liberties? These are spelled out in our Constitution and amendments thereto. Our Supreme Court has proven reasonably successful in clarifying these liberties as cases have become before them. A clear understanding of “essential liberties” in our society is continually being debated. While you and I may have different opinions we must turn to our courts for practical definition otherwise anarchy.
Temporary safety is less clearly understood. The Constitution and amendments and our legal system provides for minimum essential regulation to reasonably assure our safety. These may be considered essential to our permanent safety. So at all times, our pie is divided between our liberties and our permanent safety. The ratio between the two will vary over time as our needs change. Further there is always a grey area of conflict which our courts continually attempt to clarify yet essentially our pie is divided between the two.
The implication of the aphorism above is that no temporary restriction of our liberty should be allowed. This does not seem practical. They were imposed in the Civil War, WWII and at least the Presidency feels the need for some today. I would argue that it is essential to give up some essential liberties, or to be clearer, to limit some essential liberties in time of national stress if we are to protect our nation and its people. I would further argue that it is needed today in the age of terrorism. I do not use the term “war on terrorism” because the phrase is imprecise, inaccurate and misrepresentative but that is another topic for another time. Johns
Welcome back JohnS to the current set of Commenters. You always add value to our discussions.
Thanks for crisping up the discussion. We are talking about ESSENTIAL liberties and how many or how much of these we should give up in stressful times, such as civil and world wars and our current time of terrorism.
You give the primary role to our Supreme Court "[which] has proven reasonably successful in clarifying these liberties as cases have become before them. A clear understanding of 'essential liberties' in our society is continually being debated. While you and I may have different opinions we must turn to our courts for practical definition otherwise anarchy."
OK, but isn't this a circular argument? In "Dred Scott" the SC decided an escaped slave, even one in a non-slave state, was still property and had to be returned. So, at that time, ESSENTIAL liberty was diminished for some human beings who had committed no crime recognized in the non-slave state. (This differs from a common criminal escaped from one state to another where his crime is recognized as such by both states.)
Your argument seems to be: we can give up ESSENTIAL liberties if and only if the SC rules them non-essential!
Someone said that judges "read the newspapers" so the standards of what they (and the SC) may consider to be essential liberties vary according to circumstances. There are more essential liberties in easy times and fewer during civil war and world war and terrorist times.
That is OK by me.
Ira Glickstein
Post a Comment