The Meaning of Security

[Mises Daily Article]

<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1619>http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1619

The Meaning of Security

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

[Posted September 20, 2004]

 Let's think about the word security, which has been in the news lately
because the Bush administration seeks a major shift in the way funds are
spent in Iraq. It wants $3 billion moved from spending on reconstruction to
spending on "security." There's a political science lesson in that usage.

The reason for the shift, of course, is the obvious unraveling of anything
resembling civilization in Iraq: bombings, killings, mini-wars are
everywhere. Whole regions of Iraq are lost to US control, and not even
Baghdad is holding. Of the $18 billion congress allocated for public works,
the Bush administration argues that it makes sense to divert some to bring
a measure of public stability to the country.

But what are we really talking about when we say "security"? It is money
taken from you and me to be spent to force the Iraqi population to submit
to the puppet government that rules only because of the US. It is money to
pay for more police, weapons, bullets, bombs, spying, arresting, torturing,
jailing, maiming, and killing.

The theory is that more fear and more fear-inspiring bloodshed will tame
the guerrillas and stop them from plotting more bombings, shootings,
killings. The money will buy compliance, and pay the bills of those who use
force to try to bring it about. Many people would be happy for an end to
violence, to be sure, but the primary purpose is the protection of the
state from rebels.  

Submission and compliance: that is what is meant by the term security in
the state's lexicon. It is an interesting choice of words. Its use in
public life dates at least to the advent of Social Security, a tax scheme
that promises to put you on welfare in your old age in exchange for paying
14 percent of your income to support current retirees who constitute the
wealthiest demographic slice of the American population. Even in this case,
the term security meant compliance, as shown by the tendency of recipients
to back ever more redistribution.

Now we have the Department of Homeland Security, a gargantuan agency that
administers foreign and domestic spying, sends hither swarms of agents to
harass us at airports, conduct drills in the event that the government
decides that martial law is the only option, and generally suppress any and
all signs of insurrection wherever they might appear. Here too the term
security means submission, control, compliance, obedience, and stability
for the state.

Who is this security trying to secure? We are told it is for our own
benefit. It is government that makes us secure from terrible threats. And
yet, if we look closely, we can see that the main beneficiary of security
is the state itself.

We all understand this intuitively. Let's say you know that someone is
after youan ex-spouse, for exampleand threatens your very life. Would you
call the Department of Homeland Security and expect a response? No, the DHS
is there is protect the state, as evidence by the comparatively energetic
response that a threat to the president's life would elicit.

Of course, there is a need and demand for authentic security. We all seek
it. We lock our doors, deter criminals with alarms, arm ourselves in case
the alarms dont do it, prepare for the worst in the case of natural
disaster, save for the future, and construct our professional lives in ways
that minimize the chance of disadvantageous turns of events. This is what
security means to us in the real world.

It is not unexpected that the state would seek the same thing: security not
for us but for itself and its employees. The state has a special reason to
desire security: its agents are always a minority of the population, funded
by eating out their substance, and its rule is always vulnerable. The more
control it seeks over a population, the more its agents are wise to watch
their backs.

Where does that leave the rest of us in our demand for security? In the
world of ideas, a vigorous debate is taking place about the extent to which
private enterprise is capable of providing security, not only as a
supplement but as a full replacement for state-provided security.

Advocates of fully privatized security point out that in the real world,
most of the security we enjoy is purchased in the private sector. Vast
networks of food distribution protect against starvation, private agents
guard our homes, insurance companies provide compensation in the event of
unexpected misfortune, and the locks and guns and gated communities
provided by private enterprise do the bulk of work for our security in the
real world.

In our community, we spent days preparing for what was expected to be the
terrible hurricane Ivan. It didn't do much damage here, but in all the
preparations, this much is clear: no one counted on the government to do
anything to protect us. And no one counts on the government to do any
reconstruction either. We depend entirely on our own efforts, while
post-disaster clean up would have been done entirely by private contract.

The message of this school of thought is that liberty and security (real
security) are not opposites such that one must choose between them. They go
together. Liberty is the essence of the free enterprise system that
provides for all our material needs, that helps us overcome the
uncertainties and contingencies of life.

As for the public agencies, how do they act in a crisis? They are reduced
to sending out warnings to "stay alert" and otherwise blowing big alarms as
if no one can look outside their windows, listen to the radio, or check the
web. This is pretty much all Homeland Security does with its laughable
system of color-coded alerts. They also order us to leave our homes, search
us, and threaten us with arrest if we protest.

The truth is that government has less ability to protect us in an emergency
than we have to protect ourselves. And despite all the propaganda you hear
about brave public workers, the same was true during 9-11. The bottom line
is that it represented the greatest failure of state security in a
generation. That is the real lesson from that day.

Iraq too demonstrates a lesson concerning public and private security. When
it is politically feasible, the big mucks in Iraq choose to use private
security firms to protect themselves. This was the major undertaking of its
mercenaries when the US civilian government was running matters. How ironic
that even the state chooses private contractors when it can. When it seeks
genuine security, it too buys it on the free market.

Americans have something in common with Iraqis: experience has told us that
when the government promises to bring us security, it means only that it
wants more control over our lives so that the state can enjoy longevity and
peace at our expense. The real choice isn't between liberty and security;
it is between our security and the state's.

____________________________

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Mises Institute and editor
of <http://www.lewrockwell.com>LewRockwell.com.
<mailto:rockwell at mises.org>rockwell at mises.org. Post comments on the
<http://www.mises.org/blog>blog.

In response to many requests, it is now possible to set your credit-card
contribution to the Mises Institute to be recurring. You can easily set
this up on-line with a donation starting at $10 per month. See the
<https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Membership Page. This is one way to
ensure that your support for the Mises Institute is ongoing.

<http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1619>[Print Friendly Page]

<http://www.mises.org/blog/>

<http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Mises Email List Services

<https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Join the Mises Institute
<http://www.mises.org/store>Mises.org Store

<http://www.mises.org/>Home | <http://www.mises.org/about.asp>About |
<http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Email List |
<http://www.google.com/u/Mises>Search |
<http://www.mises.org/contact.asp>Contact Us |
<http://www.mises.org/journals.asp>Periodicals |
<http://www.mises.org/articles.asp>Articles |
<http://www.mises.org/fun.asp>Games & Fun
<http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=117>EBooks |
<http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp>Resources |
<http://www.mises.org/catalog.asp>Catalog |
<https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Contributions |
<http://www.mises.org/calendar.asp>Freedom Calendar

You are subscribed as: rah at ibuc.com
Manage
<http://mises.biglist.com/list/article/?p=prefs&pre=l&e=13958347&pw=1tyvx5togc>your
account. Unsubscribe
<http://mises.biglist.com/list/article/?p=unsub&pre=l&e=13958347&pw=1tyvx5togc>here
or send email to <mailto:article-unsub-13958347 at mises.biglist.com>this
address.

--- end forwarded text


-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'