I don't recall the context, but my point was that the state must serve liberty or it is not a just state. A government that abuses liberties instead of acting to preserve them does not deserve the citizens' loyalty. The citizens would be right to change that government. Hence the American Revolution.
That does not mean that I think government is not necessary. It is, as Hamilton, Madison and Jay explained thoroughly.
Even Keyes appears to agree on that point, except that he seems to think that, in the case of drug laws, it is only necessary because we don't all regularly attend "God-fearing churches" and because we try to keep church and state separate, leading to the breakdown of morals and resulting in 1) drug abuse and 2) abortions. Quite a leap, he makes, but that's another matter.
In any case, for whatever reason, government is necessary if we are to enjoy liberty.
The debates start when trying to figure out 1) how much government is necessary - i.e. what is the proper role of government - and 2) how to go about fulfilling that role - i.e. what laws, policies and programs will best work to achieve the agreed objectives.
For example, does the government have a proper role in ensuring educational opportunities for all children and, if so, how should government go about it?
In the case of airport/airline security, I doubt any reasonable person would argue, given the potential threats to public safety and national security of which we are now painfully aware, that security of our air transportation systems is a legitimate role and duty of our government. The debate in Congress, whether both sides of the aisle acknowledge it or not, comes down to how best the government can ensure that security.
Given the obvious failures of private businesses in managing security at individual airports, it is perfectly reasonable for our representatives in Congress to raise doubts about the ability of private security companies to meet our needs as a nation. In fact, it is their duty to ask the question and debate it.
Moreover, given that this is a matter of public safety and national security, the burden of proof should be on private enterprise to prove that 1) they are capable of meeting our security needs and 2) that there are benefits to society, whether economic or otherwise, from privatization of such a function that significantly outweigh the risks of putting a policing and national security function in the hands of private business.
You appear to think that air transport security is NOT a proper function of government, but you will not even attempt to make a case for why this is so. I doubt you can. Instead, you prefer to just call me a liberal for the alleged sin of favoring big government.
Are you too lazy to defend your claim or had you just not thought it through enough to get it right and now don't want to admit you were wrong? |
