Whether Americans should give up some their civil liberties to make America safer

Lalit A Patel

The sad event of 9/11 (of 2001) burnt down two great monumental buildings, burnt alive more than three thousand human beings of high calibers, mentally agonized families and friends of the victims, caused gigantic economic losses running in trillions of dollars, and humiliated the American government and systems. It has made the American free people ponder whether they are really free in this world. It has given rise to a nationwide and forceful dialog on whether Americans should give up some their civil liberties to make America safer.

Even though a human hand has only five fingers, these fingers are more different than similar; they vary in their structure, length, diameter, start, end, cuts, nails, likings, functions, and so on. Likewise, it is utterly impossible to have a consensus on anything amongst a huge and diverse population of America. And, when it comes to the question of civil liberties, Americans are more divided than united in their feelings and expressions. Despite all these differences, everyone would agree that it is better to be safe than fake.

Prior to the 9/11 event, air travelers boarding at American airports could buy their tickets at last minutes at bargain prices at yyy.boardmeiamnowflying.zzz type web sites and walk into airports as freely as into common parks. Soon after the 9/11 event, that scene changed and has changed almost for ever. Now, no sensible air traveler would bargain for his/her ticket and rush to an airport without adequate time margins. Except for some complaints by people of Middle East origins about undue discrimination, all air travelers have seriously understood the etiquettes and ethics of air travels. They do not complain that their civil liberties are at stake. They understand and understand it well that air travel safety is more important than civil liberties that provide air travel convenience. There is no denial here that less liberty can be tolerated for a sounder safety.

Some movies, which were scheduled to be released after 9/11/2001 and carried some scenes of burning of buildings, were modified and delayed. No government authority had to persuade producers to modify or delay those movies. A common sense and moral obligation dictated that civil liberties to produce and show movies should not be abused if the safety and feelings of the masses are at stake. Despite the freedom available to them, and despite possibilities of better business through attraction catching stories, the American press and media have not gone out of their way to produce and release stories meant to ignite civil wars. They understand their responsibilities while availing of their liberties.

Despite being a political enemy of the Republican party, the Democrat party extended its support to the Republican party in taking some important measures after the 9/11 event. The elected and the electoral, and the government authorities, understand reasonably well that the nation’s happiness is more important than the party’s happiness, and that the safety is essential whereas civil liberties are desirable.

These and many other things prove beyond doubt that the American people and machinery at large prefer safety to civil liberties. They would not like civil liberties that snatch or retard their safety. It is apparent that the safety pan in a two-pan balance is heavier than the liberties pan.

A two-pan balance is significantly affected by magnetic fields surrounding its two pans. (Beware of a seller who keeps a magnet below the items’ pan.) While civil liberties and safety are being weighed through a two-pan balance, the economic scenario acts like a magnetic field and forces the two plan to fluctuate significantly. The nation’s economic scenario plays a pivotal role in deciding how people perceive civil liberties versus safety. A good economic time allows people to make the best use of whatever civil liberties and safety they have at their disposal; people do not grumble about any shortfalls in civil liberties or safety when the economy is good. On the other hand, a bad economic time prevents people from making a good use of whatever civil liberties and safety they have at their disposal; people keep grumbling about even minor shortfalls in civil liberties or safety when the economy is bad.

The economic over-inflation of the 1997-2000 era, the 9/11 era, and the avoidable Iraq war have ruined the American economy. There is a wide-and-deep-spread scarcity and insecurity in the job market in almost all fields in all regions in America. There are layoffs even in essential services like education and patrolling. When the situation is so bad, and the economic survival is at stake, most people do not have much appetite to discuss about civil liberties or safety. What is worse is that politically mighty people take control over the very definition of economics, liberties, and safety, in an economically groom atmosphere.

In nutshell, the economic well-being of the public and the nation should be the number one agenda of the government. Keeping in mind that the public safety level falls with social instabilities, the government should avoid steps that may lead to social instabilities. When the public is comfortable with economic and safety levels, the public is happy with whatever civil liberties are available. When the public is not comfortable with economic and safety levels, civil liberties loose their meaning.