Mr. Paul makes excellent points and I generally agree with the thrust of his comments, especially regarding the propensity of governments to use security and risk-reduction as a rationale to expand control. If the Right is using the threat of terrorism as its rationale, so the Left will use fears about global warming, etc. as its rationale. But, as long as we still hold the ability to vote these characters in or out of office, we share the blame by giving the perception of demanding to live a risk-free, all-secure life. Or, we acquiesce by apathy.
On the other hand, even strict libertarians recognize that one of the legitimate functions of government is to provide a measure of security for its citizens against foreign and domestic threats to life and property. The key is a *measured* response to a *realistic* threat assessment--for the purpose of providing real security, not increasing government power. For example, IMO, pulling over an erratic or reckless driver is a legitimate, measured response to the real threat of a drunk driver, but DUI checkpoints are not.
Airport security began in the 60's and 70's with the appearance of skyjackers. Some were political and wanted to be flown to Cuba (or elsewhere), and some were extortion. Then it became more violent and related to the conflict in the Middle East. Airplanes were being blown up. Now, suicide tactics have made the threat even more deadly. No longer can we assume that a person carrying his own luggage on board doesn't have a bomb.
Was government, in the name of individual liberty, supposed to ignore this threat? Without searches of persons and baggage, would the skyjackings and bombings have increased or decreased? Is the freedom to get on an airplane without having your person or affects searched meaningful if you avoid putting yourself or your loved ones on a plane because of the very real risk of death by criminal activity?
There has always been a compromise between liberty and security--which varies with the situation. IF we lived in a world where individuals and nations respected the rights of others, the issue would be moot, wouldn't it? But, that's not the world we live in. The answer isn't a police state, but a measured response to the real threats and real criminals.
K
