Freedom and Safety are Not Mutually Exclusive
In my last article, I discussed Mass Formation Psychosis and Living with Risk. (Available here.) Everything comes with some degree of risk. It is up to each individual to determine the level of risk you are comfortable with. When discussing risk, safety must be addressed, because risk is an assessment of how safe something is. If risk is low, safety is therefore high. (Generally speaking.)
The prevailing wisdom says that there is a similar correlation between Freedom and Safety. As freedom goes up, safety goes down. We have to give up freedom to have safety. I am going to respectfully disagree with that concept. I believe that limits in the name of safety do not provide the safety they say they do, and removing those limits brings more safety and more freedom. But before I go into that, I need to define both Freedom and Safety.
Freedom is defined by Miriam-Webster’s as “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Constraint is defined as “the state of being checked, restricted, or compelled to avoid or perform some action.” Therefore, freedom is not being required to, or kept from, doing something.
The definition of Safety is a much more interesting discussion. Merriam-Webster defines Safety as “the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss.” I have a Webster’s Elementary-School Dictionary from 1914. (Printed by the American Book Company, Springfield, Mass.) It defines Safety slightly differently: The “state of being safe; freedom from danger; quality of making safe.” Safe is defined as: “Free from harm or risk. Conferring safety. Incapable of doing harm; in secure custody; as, the prisoner is safe.” There is a subtle difference in these two approaches. The current definition focuses on not being or causing hurt, injury, or loss. The old definition focuses on being free from danger, with an element of no harm due to the removal of danger. This is an important difference.
Why is this difference so important? Let us look at different classes of laws. Building codes provide a minimum quality standard to which buildings must be built for the safety of everyone inside. No matter which definition of safety I use, (not causing hurt or freedom from danger), building codes fall squarely within that definition.
In the case of building codes, they have actually brought more freedom to individuals, not less. Why? I can go into any new building in the United States of America today and know if an earthquake or hurricane hits, I will be relatively safe. The building is not going to collapse or fall over. Knowing I am safe allows me the freedom to live and work in very large buildings with no fear. There are other parts of the world where I would not want to live or work in certain buildings, thus limiting my freedom, because I am concerned for my safety.
But if I look at the category of gun control laws, we see a much different result. Gun Control in the name of Safety falls squarely under the new definition of not causing hurt or injury, but if fails the old definition of providing freedom from danger. The reason people carry guns is because it provides safety in the way of protection from danger, even if it may cause hurt or injury to someone making the choice to attack or rob. In this case, the increase in supposed “safety” results in less freedom, and less overall safety. Look at the cities with the highest gun control laws in America, you will also find the cities with the highest murder rates. If gun control worked, you would expect the murder rates to drop. Now find states and cities with very low/almost nonexistent gun control laws. Both murder rates and violent crimes are low. Decrease the freedom, decrease the safety.
It is not a stretch to say that if I am safe, I have no concerns about someone stealing from me or harming me. Laws in the name of safety, that allow the government to seize the money, property, or liberty of an individual for non-compliance are not designed to actually make you more safe. They are designed to make you comply. They are not capable of bringing the safety they are passed in the name of.