|Source: Liberty Pen-|
One of my favorite Milton Friedman quotes is 'without liberty there is no security.' As well as without security there is no liberty, because then there would just be chaos. But I hate this neoconservative argument that somehow individual freedom and privacy threatens security, because somehow it gives people freedom to threaten the state and the security of the people. You need a limited government and national security state protecting the people from predators foreign and domestic. But you do that by targeting criminals and terrorists. Not treating everyone as terrorists and eliminating the guaranteed Right to Privacy in America and suggesting that everyone is a potential suspect until proven otherwise. Even in this so-called War on Terror that Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution is still there and still relevant.
There's no such thing as individual freedom and limited government in a national police state. Whether it is in the Middle East or Russia or North Korea or what Neoconservatives want in America. But with limited government even the national security state in that government is held accountable and is limited under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as far as how it can regulate society and what it can do and for the people. You eliminate the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights and you not only eliminate limited government in what's supposed to be a liberal democracy, but you eliminate individual freedom. Especially personal freedom and the Right to Privacy. So when Congress and the President pushes anti-terrorism laws, they still have to comply with the U.S. Constitution, or they're simply unconstitutional and should be thrown out.
Liberty Pen: John Stossel Interviewing U.S. Senator Rand Paul- Liberty vs Security