Liberty vs. security?
Dear Editor:
Last week’s editorial was very disappointing and was obviously aligned with letters disparaging Commission President Brenda Hutchinson’s use of a quotation by Benjamin Franklin.
To justify this concerted attack, you highlighted keywords “essential liberty” and “temporary security.” These words seem straightforward to me, but apparently provoke challenges to you and respondents Kim Wills and Reuben Darby. Hopefully, further dialogue will yield better understanding.
The following describes what these words mean to me. “Essential Liberty” means fundamental human dignity, as respect given to others and received from others that instills community relationships built upon trust. “Temporary Security” is a short-term method of enforcing conditions of safety.
Therefore Franklin’s statement, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” conveys the fundamental principle of democracy — that an individual’s right to freely associate in common unity via open government processes of mutual respect and trust is crucial.
Therefore, democracy should never be relinquished to buy protection — not even from warlords. It is similar in concept to Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death.”
Reuben Darby says he agrees with this founding principle, but thinks Hutchinson should also apply “essential liberty” to property rights of subdivision developers, in lieu of pursuing rural land-use zoning as a means of promoting the public good and protecting Morgan County’s ecology. Darby’s view that free enterprise outweighs the well-being of communities and ecosystems makes a mockery of essential liberty.
Kim Wills sums up her argument with, “The government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” Surpassing the physician’s oath, government’s protective duty implies, “First, do not harm.”
“Running people’s lives” more appropriately applies to enforced searches of all law-abiding citizens than to open public access to government with security access to courts where community violators appeal for justice.
The editorial by John Douglas was most baffling. After giving a detailed historical account of how the government had provided weapons to the Frontiersmen facing hostilities from the Indians (Lord knows why), they had taken every step in their power to protect the public, Douglas concludes, “It’s hard to believe he (Franklin) wouldn’t have been pragmatic enough to use the latest technology for the public safety.” This is absurd. Technology should never override fundamental principles of democracy. The real question is, “Will the people submit to this absurdity?”
Barbara Tutor
Berkeley Springs
