As people discuss what went on Friday in Newtown, Connecticut, there’s one aspect that sometimes gets overlooked. One reason that things like this happen in America is something very near and dear to us: freedom.
From 1976 to 1983, Argentina was under a brutal military dictatorship. Thousands of people were killed, many more “disappeared.” When democracy returned to the country in 1983, it wasn’t long until the crime rate soared. Pornography overran the newsstands. Drug activity increased. Some Argentines in the 90s told me that they would prefer a return to the military dictatorship: “At least you were safe.”
One of the safest places I’ve ever visited is Cuba. Civilians don’t carry guns. They don’t even carry knives. Armed police are quite visible, especially in the major cities. Petty crime occurs, but the crime rate for violent crime is quite low.
Would Americans be willing to trade civil liberties for safety? Possibly. We do it at the airport. We willingly submit to searches that would be illegal elsewhere. We put up with bizarre restrictions, all in the name of security.
Another example is the Patriot Act. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the public was frightened enough to allow the government to give itself broad powers, infringing on rights of privacy and due process. All in the name of safety.
I’m not advocating anything here. Just analyzing. Serious “solutions” to violent social problems would probably require further limitations on personal liberties. The American public will have to decide if such solutions are worth the price.
Back during our discussion on alcohol, one of our commenters made a comment about “playing it safe.” Basically the idea is, “If drinking is OK, but I don’t drink, I’m still safe. But if I drink and drinking’s not OK, then I’m in trouble.” It’s an old idea, one that I’ll admit to having used in the past when discussing other issues.