--><font size="2">
<h3><span id="lblStoryTitle"><font face="Verdana" size="1">http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1619</font></span></h3>
<h3><span><font face="Verdana" size="5">The Meaning of ^Security</font></span></h3>
<h4><font face="Verdana">by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.<O:P>
</O:P>
</font></h4>
<font face="Verdana">[<span class="696570113-20092004">P</span>osted
September 20, 2004]</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><img height="164" alt src="http://www.mises.org/images3/tanks.jpg" width="164" align="right" border="0">Let's
think about the word security, which has been in the news lately because the
Bush administration seeks a major shift in the way funds are spent in <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
Iraq</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
. It wants $3 billion moved from spending on reconstruction to spending on
"security." There's a political science lesson in that usage. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">The reason for the shift, of course,
is the obvious unraveling of anything resembling civilization in <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
Iraq</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
: bombings, killings, mini-wars are everywhere. Whole regions of <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
Iraq</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
are lost to US control, and not even <ST1:CITY>
<ST1:PLACE>
Baghdad</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:CITY>
is holding. Of the $18 billion congress allocated for public works, the Bush
administration argues that it makes sense to divert some to bring a measure of
public stability to the country. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">But what are we really talking about
when we say"security"? It is money taken from you and me to be spent
to force the Iraqi population to submit to the puppet government that rules only
because of the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
. It is money to pay for more police, weapons, bullets, bombs, spying, arresting,
torturing, jailing, maiming, and killing. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">The theory is that more fear and more
fear-inspiring bloodshed will tame the guerrillas and stop them from plotting
more bombings, shootings, killings. The money will buy compliance, and pay the
bills of those who use force to try to bring it about. Many people would be
happy for an end to violence, to be sure, but the primary purpose is the
protection of the state from rebels. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">Submission and compliance: that is
what is meant by the term security in the state's lexicon. It is an interesting
choice of words. Its use in public life dates at least to the advent of Social
Security, a tax scheme that promises to put you on welfare in your old age in
exchange for paying 14 percent of your income to support current retirees who
constitute the wealthiest demographic slice of the American population. Even in
this case, the term security meant compliance, as shown by the tendency of
recipients to back ever more redistribution. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">Now we have the Department of Homeland
Security, a gargantuan agency that administers foreign and domestic spying,
sends hither swarms of agents to harass us at airports, conduct drills in the
event that the government decides that martial law is the only option, and
generally suppress any and all signs of insurrection wherever they might appear.
Here too the term security means submission, control, compliance, obedience, and
stability for the state.<O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">Who is this security trying to secure?
We are told it is for our own benefit. It is government that makes us secure
from terrible threats. And yet, if we look closely, we can see that the main
beneficiary of security is the state itself.<O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">We all understand this intuitively.
Let's say you know that someone is after you—an ex-spouse, for example—and
threatens your very life. Would you call the Department of Homeland Security and
expect a response? No, the DHS is there is protect the state, as evidence by the
comparatively energetic response that a threat to the president's life would
elicit. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">Of course, there is a need and demand
for authentic security. We all seek it. We lock our doors, deter criminals with
alarms, arm ourselves in case the alarms don’t do it, prepare for the worst in
the case of natural disaster, save for the future, and construct our
professional lives in ways that minimize the chance of disadvantageous turns of
events. This is what security means to us in the real world. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">It is not unexpected that the state
would seek the same thing: security not for us but for itself and its employees.
The state has a special reason to desire security: its agents are always a
minority of the population, funded by eating out their substance, and its rule
is always vulnerable. The more control it seeks over a population, the more its
agents are wise to watch their backs. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">Where does that leave the rest of us
in our demand for security? In the world of ideas, a vigorous debate is taking
place about the extent to which private enterprise is capable of providing
security, not only as a supplement but as a full replacement for state-provided
security. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">Advocates of fully privatized security
point out that in the real world, most of the security we enjoy is purchased in
the private sector. Vast networks of food distribution protect against
starvation, private agents guard our homes, insurance companies provide
compensation in the event of unexpected misfortune, and the locks and guns and
gated communities provided by private enterprise do the bulk of work for our
security in the real world. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">In our community, we spent days
preparing for what was expected to be the terrible hurricane Ivan. It didn't do
much damage here, but in all the preparations, this much is clear: no one
counted on the government to do anything to protect us. And no one counts on the
government to do any reconstruction either. We depend entirely on our own
efforts, while post-disaster clean up would have been done entirely by private
contract. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">The message of this school of thought
is that liberty and security (real security) are not opposites such that one
must choose between them. They go together. <ST1:CITY>
<ST1:PLACE>
Liberty</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:CITY>
is the essence of the free enterprise system that provides for all our material
needs, that helps us overcome the uncertainties and contingencies of life. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">As for the public agencies, how do
they act in a crisis? They are reduced to sending out warnings to"stay
alert" and otherwise blowing big alarms as if no one can look outside their
windows, listen to the radio, or check the web. This is pretty much all Homeland
Security does with its laughable system of color-coded alerts. They also order
us to leave our homes, search us, and threaten us with arrest if we protest. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">The truth is that government has less
ability to protect us in an emergency than we have to protect ourselves. And
despite all the propaganda you hear about brave public workers, the same was
true during 9-11. The bottom line is that it represented the greatest failure of
state security in a generation. That is the real lesson from that day.<O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
Iraq</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
too demonstrates a lesson concerning public and private security. When it is
politically feasible, the big mucks in <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
Iraq</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
choose to use private security firms to protect themselves. This was the major
undertaking of its mercenaries when the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
civilian government was running matters. How ironic that even the state chooses
private contractors when it can. When it seeks genuine security, it too buys it
on the free market. <O:P>
</O:P>
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana">Americans have something in common
with Iraqis: experience has told us that when the government promises to bring
us security, it means only that it wants more control over our lives so that the
state can enjoy longevity and peace at our expense. The real choice isn't
between liberty and security; it is between our security and the state's.</font>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
<font face="Verdana"><span class="696570113-20092004">____________________________</span></font></O:P>
<p class="MsoNormal"><O:P>
</O:P>
<font face="Verdana">Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Mises
Institute and editor of Lew<span class="696570113-20092004">R</span>ockwell.com.
</font><font face="Verdana">rockwell@mises.org</font><font face="Verdana">.
Post comments on the </font><font face="Verdana">blog</font><font face="Verdana">.
</font></font>
|