|Hero of freedom, or security threat with a savior-complex?|
- If you think we should have a limited government, because by nature all systems that are powerful are inherently dangerous, then I'm assuming you are the personal ringing the church bells and hailing Snowden as a hero.
- Then there's the third person, who see this as a small glimpse into the shadowy world that exists apart from our daily lives and what we are allowed to see. The "security" side of government that has placed itself above the laws and Constitution of the United States. This is the person who wouldn't be commenting on a news piece because he's too busy fortifying their underground bunker.
All joking aside, I think we should have a little of all these people inside of us. In fact, I was reading an article where a gentleman said he was glad for Libertarians, even though he doesn't support their ideology of how a government can be run. He likes that there are liberty watchdogs, ready to raise the warning siren when someone tries to impinge on that freedom.
Last night, I was watching the deeply philosophical work Kung-Fu Panda. The school master and master emeritus (?) were having a discussion under a peach tree about control. How true control is an illusion, that there are rules to the universe and that we exist within this setting of which we have no control over. While that particular discussion was very "Eastern", the same problem is addressed in Western philosophy as the free will vs. determinism argument. This argument finds it's way back to Scholastic Philosophy, that if God is all knowing and all powerful how can we pretend that we have any choice in things, but at the same time, it is centrally held in Christianity, that God gave us free will. This argument is still alive and well today, even if academic philosophy has moved out of the realm of priests and theologians. We can look at an ordered and predetermined universe and ask the same question. Short story long, is what we have in this country freedom, or the illusion of it? My answer is yes we do, as long as it fits within a prescribed, agreed upon, notion of liberty. It's as if someone is telling you, "You can do whatever you want, as long as you choose it from this menu." I think that choice and the menu has always been there. I think that the angst that Americans are feeling is that the menu is getting smaller, and the prices are getting larger. Worse, there are others who still know how to order off-menu items and for the right price. I think if we stick with the restaurant analogy, most of us would be happy every day, going to the same sandwich shop, getting our ham and swiss on rye with a side of chips for what we consider a reasonable price for a sandwich. We only become indignant the day that someone walks in and gets a prime sirloin on a sourdough roll with a side of steak fries. "They have steak fries?" "Wait, they have a fryer?!!" "Why wasn't I told about the delicious sliced sirloin?" And the last question is what gets us every time: Why wasn't I told...
Why was the Patriot Act necessary? Why was the Affordable Healthcare Act 9,000 pages long and congressman were essentially being told they had to vote for it to find out what was in it? Why do we need a prison in Guantanamo Bay? I find that it's usually when people have something to hide that they become secretive. I think most of our bullshit meters go off when the government's response to something that was secret is uncovered and their response is, "We weren't doing anything illegal or immoral, and we definitely weren't infringing on your rights. Trust us, it was in your best interest." I think our response will always instinctively be 1) If you weren't doing something shady, why were you hiding it from me? and 2) Why don't you let me be the judge of what's in my best interest.