A common quotation, which you’ve probably heard (even if simply by playing Wing Commander IV ) is:

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

From time to time, we hear it in speeches, read it quoted in newspapers, and so on. But… one thing I’ve noticed is that many people use it in reverse, to justify the abridging of actual freedoms.

How can a phrase like “A is B” be reversed? Doesn’t “B is A” mean the same thing?

In mathematics, perhaps. But here it’s a different context.

The original meaning of the sentence is that freedom is precious and fragile, and therefore people should watch for threats to it, which, oddly enough, rarely come from invading armies, or from rebel guerrillas in the hills. They come, most often, from the leaders we elected. And they’re subtle; they know perfectly well how to take away freedoms “temporarily”, as part of an “emergency”… only, they almost never come back. “Emergencies” (“War on Terror”, anyone?) have a way to extend themselves, to become “temporarily permanent”. So, the phrase tells us to watch against those. To stay vigilant.

But “hawks” in government, the ones who, ironically, say it most often, mean just the opposite.

Their “vigilance” becomes media censorship, wiretaps, imprisonment without trial, torture against so-called “enemies of freedom”, “preemptive wars”, and so on. Why? “To guard our freedom”, they answer. “We must stay vigilant,” they say; “the threats against our freedom are everywhere.”

And so, freedom goes away, because of the “vigilance” needed to guard “freedom”. The original intent is reversed.

Sneaky, aren’t they?

“Dangers?”, you ask. “Surely, democracy is the most free political system… do you want a dictatorship or something? Are you anti-freedom?”

It’s not that simple, though. As Winston Churchill said,

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

But what’s the problem with democracy? Well, first, a definition is in order. What we have in most western countries isn’t true democracy, it’s a republic. We elect rulers, and they make policies. True democracy would mean that people would actually vote on issues. Of course, that might mean almost daily elections, which would certainly be too cumbersome.

Still, whether we’re talking about a democratic republic or about true democracy, one thing is common: most people associate it with freedom. Vox populi, vox Dei. The majority rules, and what the majority wants is best.

Maybe you’re already spotting the problem. What if the majority wants something evil? What if they want to oppress a minority? Should they be allowed to?

According to Sam Harris in The End of Faith, while most Muslim countries are dictatorships, the people there actually want them to be worse. They want to treat their women even worse than they do, to be even stricter (meaning, stoning and such) with anyone they see as “insulting Allah”, they really want to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. Not all Muslim countries are theocracies, but, if it came to a vote, they would be.

In other words, if those countries aren’t even more hellish (especially, but not only, for women) than they already are, it’s because of brutal, but comparatively secular, dictators. If the people were given the right to vote, they’d vote all their freedoms away.

What about the United States, 100 or 150 years ago? If it came to a vote, the white majority would probably not vote for emancipation. Much the opposite.

Or even now. If there was a referendum in the United States, the teaching of evolution would be out. Replaced with “intelligent design”. Because many more Americans, unfortunately, believe in creationism than in evolution. If there was a vote, Americans would vote science away, put the Ten Commandments everywhere, and possibly even try to outlaw atheism. All of this, in the 21th century.

And what stops it from happening? Something called a constitution.

A constitution – at least, a good one – has several goals, but one of the most important is this: to ensure that individual rights can’t be ignored because the majority wants them to be. What if the majority wants to kill you? Or just take your money, or your house? Are they “right” just because they’re the majority? Or are your individual rights – indeed, anyone’s individual rights – inalienable?

I believe they are.

A thing isn’t good or legitimate just because the majority wants it. Democracy and freedom aren’t synonyms.

Unfortunately, no constitution is perfect, and they are sometimes ignored, anyway. For instance, the banning of gay marriage is an obvious example of a majority opinion trampling over individual rights. Or abortion. Or assisted suicide. Even though an action doesn’t harm anyone, the majority is ignorant and bigoted, and wants to forbid it… and the minority’s rights – indeed, the individual’s rights – aren’t respected. There are many other such examples.

It is clear to me that something must be above the “will of the people”, or there is no true freedom, because “the people” can then take it away on a whim.

As Larry Flynt put it,

The majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights. Because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

You’ve probably heard of a couple of such attacks, recently. But have you heard the latest one? They apparently want Google to disclose search data. Google is refusing.

The most worrying thing is that MSN and Yahoo! have already complied.

Of course, the government doesn’t say it’s attacking privacy. It says it’s doing it “for the children”. Remember People and they stated goals? How, by saying you’re doing something (whatever it is) for some noble cause, it apparently excuses anything you do, and demonizes anyone who criticizes you? That’s what’s happening here:

Jack Samad, senior vice president for the National Coalition for Protection of Children and Families, a Cincinnati, Ohio-based advocacy group, said search engines should be willing to help the Bush administration defend the law.

Samad said: “Young people are experiencing broken lives after being exposed to adult images and behaviours on the Internet. I’m disappointed Google did not want to exercise its good corporate branding to secure the protection of youth. I think [complying with the subpoena] would substantiate the basis of Copa if they get a free exchange of information on youthful use of the internet.”

But in which way would getting “millions of search records” help in that? That’s what they don’t say. And where does it end? Anyone can abuse a child at home, so why not install government cameras in every room of every single home?

I sometimes think you could get away with killing children by saying you were doing it “to protect the children”…