Trading Freedom for Security

In my political science class, we often talk about the role of government in helping people.  To what extent should we depend upon the government to provide goods, services and protection from the harsh corners of life?  This is the heart of today’s political debate.

John Locke, the British doctor and Enlightenment philosopher, did a “thought experiment” about life before government.  I call it a thought experiment, because no one really knows what life before government would be like.  But Locke used his imagination to create a hypothetical scenario where everyone is free and equal, and no one has any authority over anyone else.  He called it the “State of Nature.”

Free and equal sounds great, doesn’t it?  But the state of nature, at least in Locke’s thought world, is inherently unsafe.  It is insecure.  Every person enforces the law as they see fit, and there is no one to protect the interests of the weak impartially.  For this reason, people voluntarily leave the state of nature, and they create government.

When you create government, you give up some of your freedom.   You expect other people to obey the will of the majority, even when they don’t like the result, and likewise they expect you to obey the will of the majority, even when you don’t like the result.  So you are less free.  Nonetheless, you are willing to give up some of your freedom for security.

This is the great trade-off with government:  We give up our freedom, and the government gives us security.  In reality, without at least minimal security, our freedoms are worthless anyway.  If you are in constant danger of being robbed, or being assaulted, how free are you?  Not very.

As government grows, it may promise us more and more security.  It may promise us food when we are poor.  It may promise us income when we are old.  It may promise us healthcare, a cleaner environment, protection from false advertising.  These are lofty and noble goals.  At the same time, it is very important to understand that none of these things are “free,” whether the government provides them, or whether we provide them for ourselves. 

In fact, each and every time we allow the government to provide for us, we give up some of our freedom.   Therefore, if we value our freedom, in each and every instance, we must ask ourselves, what is the value of the trade?  What freedoms am I giving up (they may be hidden), and what am I receiving in return?  Can the government actually deliver on its promises, and even if it can, is it worth the trade?



Trading Freedom for Security.  Is the apple crisp and juicy?  Or is it mealy with worms?