jj goes bloggish - The Pursuit of Security and Clear Estimates of Risk [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
just john

[ website | Radio Free Entropy ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The Pursuit of Security and Clear Estimates of Risk [Jan. 30th, 2006|01:11 pm]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
Today's Wall Street Journal features an op-ed titled Our Right to Security.

I'm not happy with that formulation.

Security is like happiness: a subjective estimate that each of us makes for ourselves. For instance, if Grandfather boards up the windows to keep the wolves out, and smacks his hands and declares all is secure, sister is still free to fear the Thing In The Basement. If Grandfather accedes to her fear and boards up the basement door, we're still free to fear this Grandfather who seems to be reacting to wolves and basement things, but who doesn't done anything about the Commies and their mind-control rays. (And then, after hearing the tenor of our complaints, Grandfather might not feel all that secure when he realizes he's locked himself in the house with us.)

So, as with happiness, I don't think a Government can declare a Right to Security, because of its subjectivity. A Government CAN declare that it intends to protect its citizens and national interests, and describe the actions and strategies it intends to take to do this.

And if it's a Government we'd feel secure having around, it should give us realistic estimates of what dangers it perceives are out there, and honest descriptions of how it intends to protect us from these dangers.

This isn't easy, since a Government isn't one individual, and many of its left hands don't know what its pancreas may be doing at any given time. That's why governments should always pursue transparency and honesty, if only for the logistical reason that lies and obscurity make everything so difficult to keep track of, especially for the liars and obscurers themselves.

And there's so much temptation to lie and obscure estimates of risk. After all, if you've invested your life developing anti-wolf weapons, you have an interest in keeping us all afraid of wolves. There's got to be an overarching inspection of risks that is independent of such individual ambitions and motives.

So instead of a "Right to Security," I'd propose the Duty of the Government to protect us (much of which is in law already) and our citizens' Right to Examine the Process.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: [info]wolfbaronxylo
2006-01-30 06:21 pm (UTC)

(Link)

But on the plus side: chocolate rations are up!