To the Editor:
I couldn’t agree more with David Brooks’s Jan. 1 column, “The God That Fails,” and his message that Americans need to behave more like mature adults than like children.
When, if ever, will we accept that no person or institution can offer us foolproof protection?
Even if this were possible, don’t we realize that safety does not go hand in hand with the freedom that we claim to value so highly?
We need to stop behaving and reacting out of fear. Americans appear too willing to relinquish individual freedoms in the name of safety any time there appears to be a threat. Can’t we accept that liberty comes with risk?
Based on our reaction to the tragedy of 9/11 and the recent failed terrorist attempt, I fear that we are just one successful terrorist attack away from accepting a police state, if that’s what it will take to make us feel protected.
Robert Albin
Brooklyn, Jan. 2, 2010
Note from KBJ: Two things. First, the letter writer is being uncharitable to those with whom he disagrees. Americans don't demand "foolproof protection." They demand competence. Second, everybody wants both liberty and security, but, unfortunately, they cannot both be had to the maximal extent. To get more liberty, we must give up some security, and to get more security, we must give up some liberty. The debate is about how to strike the balance, not about which value to give up. In other words, it's quantitative, not qualitative. The letter writer values liberty more than security. That's fine. Others value security more than liberty. That's also fine. Different people have different values, or assign different weights to the same values. The letter writer makes it sound as though someone values security so much as to be willing to give up all liberty to get it. I don't know anyone like this; do you? The letter writer is committing the straw-person fallacy.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 