(D) Freedom and its Price
Warning - this is not politically correct.
Freedom comes at a price. Sometimes this price is obvious, as with
casualties during a war, other times it is hidden. Nelson Mandela paid a
high price for what he achieved. Another aspect is the price paid for
our individual freedoms. Every year, people are killed and injured on
the roads, but there is no thought of taking away our freedom to drive,
except in a few limited individual cases. The public accepts that in
order for most of us to enjoy that freedom of movement, there is an
acceptable casualty rate. We'd all like it to be lower but would all
fight against any restrictions that would curtail our perceived right to
drive.
In the same way, some children will suffer because we're not all
monitored 24/7. There have been some high-profile cases, but when you
consider how many, compared to the number involved in road accidents, it
is actually quite low. It is the price to be paid for allowing the vast
majority of us to make our own decisions without government
interference. We also know that no matter how draconian the rules, the
casualty rate will never be zero, so, as in the road case, there's a
rate considered acceptable for the freedom it grants. There are
occasional adjustments - another example being airport security - as bad
things come to light and then recede in the public memory, but on
average we put up with it. The acceptability of the price also depends
on whether you are the one unlucky enough to have to pay it on behalf of
everyone else.
The "if it saves even one child" argument is fallacious. Over-zealous
government officials with too much power have the capacity to destroy
families just as much as the parents, and there are plenty of cases of
that on record too.
Benjamin Franklin had it right:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Freedom comes at a price. Sometimes this price is obvious, as with
casualties during a war, other times it is hidden. Nelson Mandela paid a
high price for what he achieved. Another aspect is the price paid for
our individual freedoms. Every year, people are killed and injured on
the roads, but there is no thought of taking away our freedom to drive,
except in a few limited individual cases. The public accepts that in
order for most of us to enjoy that freedom of movement, there is an
acceptable casualty rate. We'd all like it to be lower but would all
fight against any restrictions that would curtail our perceived right to
drive.
In the same way, some children will suffer because we're not all
monitored 24/7. There have been some high-profile cases, but when you
consider how many, compared to the number involved in road accidents, it
is actually quite low. It is the price to be paid for allowing the vast
majority of us to make our own decisions without government
interference. We also know that no matter how draconian the rules, the
casualty rate will never be zero, so, as in the road case, there's a
rate considered acceptable for the freedom it grants. There are
occasional adjustments - another example being airport security - as bad
things come to light and then recede in the public memory, but on
average we put up with it. The acceptability of the price also depends
on whether you are the one unlucky enough to have to pay it on behalf of
everyone else.
The "if it saves even one child" argument is fallacious. Over-zealous
government officials with too much power have the capacity to destroy
families just as much as the parents, and there are plenty of cases of
that on record too.
Benjamin Franklin had it right:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."