Trade Security For Liberty?

Editor:

I am responding to one of the letters to the editor regarding Chuck Baldwin's article, "America Not Among Top Ten Freest."

Your reader asserts, "Another key point is that security is necessary for liberty. If a government cannot be provide (sic) a basic frame work for law enforcement, real liberty fails because criminals can terrorize the innocent. Uganda may theoretically provide more freedom (polygamy, drug trade, etc.) (but?) the lack of security effectively eliminates property rights and personal rights with rape, robbery, murder, and looting going undeterred."

I would respond that real liberty does not depend upon government, but on the spirit of the people in their willingness and ability to defend themselves. The primary responsibility for protecting one's property, family and oneself falls not to government but to the individual. The extent that the government gets out of the way of the right of the individual to legitimate self-defense is an important indicator of how free a nation is.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution enables law-abiding citizens to virtually eliminate the specter that your reader has raised, that of "rape, robbery, murder and looting going undeterred." When the Government steps in and systematically disarms all of the citizenry in the name of "safety" as was done recently in Louisiana, we can readily see one of the major problems with the "trade liberty for security" argument. Those who are willing to follow that specious path soon find themselves at the mercy of those to whom they have usurped their freedom.

America's greatness did not originate with a mindset of "safety first," but rather that of "live free or die."

Best regards,
Mike Glaser Cincinnati, OH

Email the Editor