The Balancing Act -- Security vs Privacy

[Greg Peisert <gpeisert@jamesgregory.com>]

Dear Edward;

  You wrote: "So then, how do we set about this mighty task?" So, you want 
me to not only point out the problems, but to offer some solutions! A heavy 
burden, my friend.

  I went to a talk at Ohio's Ashland Center last night. The guest was 
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He was, as one would expect, superb. 
One of the questions he was asked had to do with this subject of privacy 
and the current practices among some police departments to essentially 
indiscriminately stop individuals and search their cars for drugs, based 
presumably on how the "look" to the officer at the time.

  Thomas explained that the Constitution provides for protection against 
"unreasonable searches and seizures." He went on to explain why he has come 
down against these indiscriminate search laws and finds them 
unconstitutional. He does not find it "reasonable" (in the legal, 
"reasonable man" sense) that such searches could be considered anything but 
"unreasonable." His view was that people must constantly decide how much of 
their freedom they are willing to exchange for their sense of public 
security. It is a balancing act.

  As to the welfare state, you said that "Clearly, such efforts as proposed 
by the Republicans back in '94 would not work without precipitating civil 
war." Actually, the welfare bill that Clinton finally signed was very close 
to what the Republicans proposed in their Contract with America. That was 
why many Democrats felt betrayed. It dealt a real and substantive blow to 
the New Deal/Great Society socialism of the '60'.

  If you read Dick Morris' fascinating book, "Behind the Oval Office," Dick 
talks about the discussions he had with Clinton when Clinton was 
contemplating signing that bill. Clinton himself did not want to sign it, 
but the internal polls were all showing overwhelming support for it among 
the American people. Morris convinced him to sign it in order to get 
re-elected, with the notion that he would go back after the election and 
"fix" it. Fortunately, he has not been able to "fix" it and now 
disingenuously claims it as his own, and as one of his administration's 
"greatest successes." The hypocrisy and irony are enough to choke on. In 
the mean time...there was no civil war. Far from it.

  The next battle I'm supporting is the one on the education front (as well 
as backing FairTax and the REAL privatization of Social Security). On the 
education front, I'm supporting the school voucher program for Ohio. 
Naturally, the teacher's unions are dead against it. The notion that a 
teacher could be removed for incompetence, and the school has to compete 
with other schools for "customers" is a frightening prospect for those who 
have enjoyed a system of almost no accountability or competency. That is 
not to say there are not good schools and great teachers. That IS to say 
that we should re-vector the system to reward those great schools and those 
competent teachers, and weed out the other kind.

  All over the world, countries are invoking the power of free markets to 
solve their nagging economic and related social problems. So pervasive is 
this trend that it is now "basic doctrine" for the International Monetary 
Fund (IMF). I suggest we do the same.

  All the best,

  -- Greg




On Friday, February 05, 1999 5:09 PM, Edward Britton 
[SMTP:fremin@geocities.com] wrote:
> Greg:
>
> >  So I see a fundamental disconnect, a logical (and oft proven) fallacy, 
in
> >the notion that you can somehow shackle one part of society and yet
> >preserve some meaningful notion of rights, of liberty, for anyone. 
Either
> >government is invasively IN our lives, or it is OUT of our lives. You
> >can't have it both ways.
>
> I, too, see the disparity :-). The devil is always in the details. How do
> we go about reclaiming such a system by effectively weaning those who
> currently depend on the government for survival, regulation or civil
> security? This is the context within which I refer to social welfare: a
> system which does not foster continued dependence. Clearly, such efforts 
as
> proposed by the Republicans back in '94 would not work without
> precipitating civil war. :-) So then, how do we set about this mighty 
task?
>
> Edward   ><>