Threats
Whenever gun nuts and libertarians are getting all gun nutty and, err, libertarian-y, someone usually pipes up to put them in their place by saying something to the effect of the government is not the biggest threat to your freedom. And I respond with Well, what is? And that usually throws them. And they go on about keeping me safe from terrorists. Yawn.
Honestly, they expect me to believe that some third-world cave-dwellers are a bigger threat to my freedom than the folks who shut down little kids lemonade stands, send people to jail for putting lobsters in bags and not boxes, or arrest you for being a jerk.
I’m not the only one who thinks like that.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:24 am
The terrorists are a threat, but not to our freedoms. More to our economy and way of life. But they’re not that big of a threat.
The bigger threat to freedom lies in our own government’s response to the terrorism. And honestly, I’m of the belief that the ruling class is milking it for everything it’s worth. And the people who claim terrorists are the #1 cause of all freedom loss
(hyperbole alert) are the ones who give the gov’t the cover it needs to abuse our freedoms even more.
Which is ironic, in a sad way.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:36 am
The Federal Reserve is a huge threat to our freedoms. It’s a privately-owned banking cartel, although most people don’t know that. But it exists at the pleasure of the government, so I guess you can blame them for that.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:48 am
See, I think this is a causation question. The government is always a threat to freedom–the biggest threat. But terrorism, even that from guys in caves, is what makes people want restrictions on freedom. If you think the post-9/11 restrictions were bad, wait until a radiological, chemical or nuclear device goes off in an American city. People will put up with all kinds of restrictions on freedom so long as their physical well-being is not threatened. And it is a gigantic threat. The end goals of those terrorists might seem fantastical, but not in their minds, and they certainly have the will to get it done. The means are less important when their enemy has no will to defend itself.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Some people to the left of me seem to think that big corporations are a bigger threat than the government because they can use their money to get the government to do what they want it to do. They think that by making the government bigger and giving it more control that it can control the evil corporations.
My response is that if it weren’t for a large government, then the corporations couldn’t use it as that type of vehicle and if they want to stop that, making a bigger government is only going to make it worse.
They can’t seem to understand their own circular logic on the matter.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Liberty or Death is more than just a slogan. I would prefer that we let the terroists run wild and face the very slight possibility of an untimely death in a terrorist attack than suffer a loss of Liberty from fascist bureaucrats. Thankfully, the people who want to fight the terrorists also tend to be the people who want to lower taxes and get an NRA endorsement, so it’s a twofer. If they solved all of the problems with government in one term, how would they get re-elected? We should incentivize good governance.
The only thing that really bothers me is the radical anarchist sect of self-described Libertarians who think that terrorism is imaginary, the Jihadists aren’t real, but the moon landing was faked and aircraft vapor trails are being used to disperse mind controlling drugs.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Exactly! I wish people would learn to make those distinctions. It’s reeeeaaaaaaallly tiring arguing with people who, when you point out that in actuality there’s no way a bunch of bearded idiots shitting in a cave in Pakistan are going to undo the COTUS and take over our country, make the leap that you don’t think terrorism is a threat.
Of course it is, to individual life and limb. But unless you live in Beirut or somewhere similar, your odds of gator attack are about as high.
Do terrorists need dealt with? Yup. But we’re sowing the seeds of our own destruction here just fine without their help.
Bridges are falling into rivers, streetlights and police services are being cut back, schools are being furloughed, we’re entering another depression, pandemics loom, our infrastructure is crumbling…but a bearded asshole chanting into a camera and clutching a rusty AK variant is our biggest existential threat?
Muthafucka please.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:53 am
The big problem with terrorism it is enables those who wield power, by making people more willing to surrender their civil rights to people who promise to keep them safe.
August 9th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
“The only thing that really bothers me is the radical anarchist sect of self-described Libertarians who think that terrorism is imaginary”
Radical sect???
Have you read Reason lately? That’s mainstream Libertarian thought!
August 9th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
“but a bearded asshole chanting into a camera and clutching a rusty AK variant is our biggest existential threat?”
If that bearded asshole has 10 million hardcore followers willing to die for his message, then he’s a pretty big threat. I think the threat is much less from jihadists blowing up buildings, but from the inevitable destruction of freedom that comes from successful terrorist attacks. Also, the less violent means of attacking our society are what makes the threat existential–they don’t merely want to quibble with our policies in Southwest Asia, they want to run the world as a caliphate, and they will do anything to reach that goal. They use our freedoms against us by claiming that freedom for themselves, but immediately denying those freedoms to those they disapprove of (women, “infidels,” etc.). It is far more complicated than “the government or the terrorists.”
August 9th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Political anaphylaxis – the body politic responds to a minor insult, e.g. terrorism, by overreacting and attempting to kill itself.
August 9th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“Have you read Reason lately? That’s mainstream Libertarian thought!”
Shootin’ Buddy:
I subscribe to *Reason* and read it regularly. I don’t recall any recent articles suggesting that terrorism is imaginary. If it’s not too much trouble for you, could you point out some specific examples?
August 9th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Three thousand killed versus a lemonade stand …
I understand the original point but there were three thousand people killed at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And no one died in Oregon from the Portland city public health goons’ actions.
So lets not get ridiculous.
August 9th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
In statistics, we call this an expect value issue. No one is denying that terrorists exist that want to cause harm, but what is their true ability to inflict that harm? There is a threat of auto crashes and ebola as well – ebola with higher severity but auto crashes with higher frequency. We spend our loss prevention efforts on the auto crashes for good reason. Terrorism is a minor threat that should be dealt with as a serious police matter, not a military occupation of 2 countries and the creation of electronic dossiers on every citizen in OUR country. Government has and always will be the greatest threat to the prosperity and improvement of man. Our founders recognized this.
August 9th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Sorry, meant to say Expected Value analysis. E[X]=?
August 9th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
I agree, also thanks for saying it. I know it’s a lonely position to hold.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
For most people, they (or their spouse) are their own worst threat.
Folks are more likely to lose their house because they didn’t pay the mortgage, than for the government to Kelo it. They are more likely to get arrested because they got drunk and did something illegal, than because an evil cop (or judge) decided to screw with them. They are more likely to get a no-knock raid because they need one, than because an informant lies or somebody messes up the paperwork.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
rusty
August 10th, 2010 at 12:01 am
“Bridges are falling into rivers, streetlights and police services are being cut back, schools are being furloughed, we’re entering another depression, pandemics loom, our infrastructure is crumbling…but a bearded asshole chanting into a camera and clutching a rusty AK variant is our biggest existential threat? ”
How about a bearded asshole with a Visa card and a set of box cutters? One who gets hired as the helmsman on a liquid natural gas tanker? Or ships a trainload of fertilizer through a major city before detonating it? How about one who shuts down all the elevators on a high rise and lights the lower floors on fire?
Look, fact is these jokers can only hurt us with the things we create. Doesn’t matter, you’re just as dead with some dug up Russian test dud repurposed by a RIF who studied on the Saudi student visa program as you are from some ultra modern American fusion nuke engineered in a clean room and delivered by stealth bomber.
The fact that since 9/11 we’ve done a really good job at stopping them doesn’t mean the threat is gone, it means we’ve been able to contain it. It’s like the people who say “why do we need 12 carriers if no one else has more then 2?” They’ve got it backwards: No one else even bothers because they can’t match 12. Spending billions on defense annually just to widen the capability gap is much cheaper then fighting wars every so often to prove we’re still top dog.
Counterterror suffers from the same problem the intelligence community has always had: Your failures are front page news, complete with Congressional hearings, and your successes are classified till long after all the players are dead. Which means you’re going to see a steady drain in resources away from counterterror in favor of more vote buying schemes, until the next big attack. Then the assholes who redirected money that could have paid for more analysts to the Jonathon Q. Dickhead Airport will engage in ritual dickbeating on CSPAN wondering why the dots weren’t connected.
August 10th, 2010 at 12:48 am
Interesting question, Unc. Freedom is usually understood as not being physically harmed, in this context. But what do people in your average poll really know about the freedom you’re talking about (and I agree with).
I was three blocks from the Trade Center on 9.11. I’ve seen people take other’s freedom, alost 3K at once. I agree with Britt about the .gov doing what it is supposed to do. One of the only things it’s supposed to do.
Living in NJ there is a long list of things I can’t do, thousands of pages long, And I have to pay through the nose for others (smokes 8.50, NYC 13 a pack, fees, registrations, permits) every one of them with some do-gooder busy-body trying to gain control or save somebody from making a “bad” decision. Fer chrissakes, I can’t ride an electic scooter on the sidewalk or street (anywhere in NJ), because some city parents gave mini bikes to their kids, who immediately got hit by cars when unsupervised. Whoda thunk? Do we need a state wide ban?
The word on the street is that people are pushing back, that’s a good thing. Can’t go wrong there. Here’s hoping.
August 10th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Jesus fucking Christ on a stick, thanks for proving my point Britt.
I DIDN’T SAY THE THREAT WASN’T THERE.
I said what others have also pointed out–the real threat writ large is them goading us into giving our civil liberties away. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year from cigarettes and medical malpractice. Yeah 3000 people dead is nothing to sneeze at, but what’s the REAL threat?
The real threat isn’t to life and limb, but to our way of life.
Do the Jihadis need to be watched so they can’t come here and start blowing up department stores or natural gas storage facilities?
Sure. But a little fuckin perspective please. That bearded asshole in a cave may well have 10mil followers who think he’s the bees knees, but the last ten years have shown that it is possible to counter their efforts.
Now the question becomes countering them while not giving away the farm on freedom–ultimately what they want us to do in the first place. They know they’ll never get to install Sharia law here, they’re having a hard enough time in their own countries. But they can use fear to get us to give up our own way of life.
August 10th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
The 3,000 dead on 9/11 is inconsequential when you look at the nation as a whole. We have lost more than twice that many of our military personnel since then in fighting the GWOT. (How you can fight a war against an act, I do not understand. Might as well declare war on poor manners.)
We will lose about 42,000 each year to auto accidents. If we made it illegal for anyone to drive after dark, this number would be cut drastically, and the military won’t have to suffer 7,000 casualties to do it.
The ‘war on terror’ is a farce. It will not prevent the next terror attack, and has cost us thousands of our young men and women, not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted when we fire a $250,000 missile at a camel.
Did you know that there are 1,000 troops in Afghanistan for each Al Qaeda member?
August 11th, 2010 at 2:03 am
Why have we not heard from Our Tam here? Is it because she does not deign to answer shootin’buddy’s silly internet propositions?
S.B., you play nice with Tam, hear? There are lots of us who met her and love her, either IRL or on the Net, before you met her.
Tam, S.B. obviously believes that the North was in the right in the Lincoln War. Don’t turn yer back on him.
August 15th, 2010 at 11:21 am
I must say that is is very refreshing to hear from people that in 2007 would have demanded uncle retract this statement in support of the .gov cartel. Times they are a changing….