Liberty We Are Living in a New

¶ … Liberty

We are living in a new era, an era of global power and global vulnerability. In response to the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, and the recognition that we are facing a worldwide network of terrorists whose singular goal is to harm the United States and its interests, we have had to re-evaluate our civil liberties. Has our open society, our open emigration policy, our support of individual freedom and autonomy and privacy, left us uniquely vulnerable? How do we balance liberty with safety? Our current government has made various policy changes that will allow greater invasion of privacy. At the same time, in this period of unrest, troubles within our own society have brought the same issue to the forefront. After repeated episodes where children killed children in high schools, it became commonplace for schools to search lockers and even in some cases to use metal detectors, on the fear and supposition that some children might be carrying guns. Luggage must now be searched in airports. Profiling of potentially dangerous individuals is in place.

How would John Stuart Mill, a famous defender of freedom and autonomy, have analyzed this situation we are in? There is no doubt that On Liberty is a seminal text, and that this famous, short book truly crystallized the philosophy of liberty and remains influential to this day. According to Mill's introduction, civil liberty is simply "the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." Mill noted that compulsion and even despotism is a necessary means of rule when a government is dealing with "barbarians"; but once a society has "attained a capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion" then individual sovereignty is vital. Mill states, "The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to attain it."

Therein lies the difficulty -- the tremendous difficulty of achieving a balance. In his second chapter Mill says he can see no argument against the freedom of the press. Not even a single voice should be silenced. What would Mill say today, when if the press were allowed total freedom, they might leak important security information from the FBI and the CIA in their attempt to pursue individuals who are masterminding schemes for further terrorist activities that could harm hundreds or even hundreds of thousands of Americans? I believe that Mill, in speaking of the freedom of all voices, was speaking of the freedom to express opinion, to express dissent. The editorial and op-ed pages of our newspapers should allow all voices to join in, no matter what their opinion. This is different than leaking important security information. And yet Mill is definitely an optimist, one who believes that mankind can and will better itself, and learn and choose wisely. He might be dismayed to see what turmoil our world is in today. And if he were to take a good look at the scope of history he might see that unfortunately, the impulse to war -- the "barbarian" impulse -- is something that seems impossible to eradicate from human nature or human society. It occurs again and again. Even after the devastation of World War I and World War II, we have had violent civil wars around the world, we continue to see torture and bombing in the middle East, and we have terrorists willing to become human suicide bombs. Since Mill is a man who believes in the value of ideas, and in arguing for and against them, and challenging ideas, he would hopefully be willing to reassess his optimism. Societies do not simply proceed to ever greater advancement, particularly in the areas of wisdom. There will always be conflict. And in an age of conflict, it is necessary to circumscribe certain civil liberties in order to protect citizens, to protect life, and to quiet "barbarian" forces.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for listening to the complaints of the disenfranchised. Mill points out that tolerating dissent has had catastrophic results in history. Currently in the United States in the wake of the terrorist attacks, not enough of a critical dialogue has been allowed. Even in times of unique crisis such as this, dissenting opinions and even criticism must be welcomed. Here I agree with Mill. He notes that "the claims of an opinion to be protected form public attack are rooted not on much on its truth, as on its importance to society." The current public policy has quietly embraced this, and unfortunately, certain truths are not shown. The darker aspects of war are whitewashed -- at least from our side. And it's important to discuss whether the terrorists have any legitimate claims. Although journals like Foreign Affairs may openly analyze the situation we are in, the level of public discourse is purposely simplified and sentimentalized. This helps us ignore our own flaws as a superpower, and where we might adjust our policies in order to create more international harmony.