Fayzan Ahmed									         2/8/16
Economics										       Period 3

					 	  Essay
					 Liberty vs. Security

	The 21st century has been a dangerous time for the western world. Terrorism has left our people devastated.  On September 11, 2001, members of the terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda had attacked the United States.  This incident had killed nearly 3,000 people and had left many others in fear and despair.  Since then, the United States has taken anti-terrorism acts, such as signing the Patriot Act of 2001, which has allowed American government to tap into phone calls and monitor internet usage.  However, such an approach comes at the cost of our liberty.  Before taking such actions, we must ask ourselves: What is more important; liberty or security?  I believe that liberty is more important and that there are other actions we should take as means of preventing terrorism.

	To keep America safe, liberty must take precedence over security.  As Thomas Kavinsky mentions in his article, by invading people’s privacy as our way of counteracting terrorism, we lose sight of the bigger picture.  We choose not to see the connection between our foreign policy and the threat of terrorism.  We overlook the reason that terrorists attack us to begin with, which is not because of who we are, but because we kill their people.  Major industrial countries such as Norway aren’t too threatened by terrorists.  Norway understands that the best way to prevent terrorism is to treat people respectfully and to not fuel violence.  Ironically, the solutions that we have been taking do nothing but cause disagreement and mistrust between people.  In fact, can we even safely assume that the government does not misuse the information they gather from our current methods?  In order to keep our country safe, we must alter our foreign policy, not place such restrictions on our people.

	A second reason that we must adhere more to liberty than security is because of the effects of combining our fear of terrorism with further limitations on our rights.  Thomas Kavinsky states that by doing such, we will become more susceptible to authoritarianism.  Even under the assumption that the government does not act wrongfully with the information they gather, our current methods still cost us our privacy, our rights, and only put us closer to fascist tendencies.  We have experienced brief moments of fascism before.  During April of 2013, authorities declared de facto martial law on Boston for a day searching for someone who used a pressure cooker as a bomb.  In the case of there being a more significant terrorist threat, one can only imagine what the authorities would do.  If we desire liberty, then this is not the way to go.  We must stop fighting and begin to adjust our foreign policy.

	The strongest arguments that the opposing side makes are that government eavesdropping helps against cyber-attacks and that there is no evidence of the government wrongdoings with the information they have gathered.  However, even assuming that the government has not misused that information, I would not like to sacrifice my rights for little to no reward. Once again, we lose sight of the big picture here.  Instead of monitoring messages, we need to treat people respectfully and then see whether terrorists still hate us.  As for the cyber-attacks, that issue can be addressed while America changes its foreign policy.  While doing so, we can establish guidelines on cyber-warfare.  Countries can also work together and come up with ways to prevent cyber-attacks.

	In conclusion, there are much better ways to take action against terrorism than sacrificing liberty.  America’s current methods of dealing with the issue are incorrect and only result in more problems.  Taking away people’s rights has more losses than it does gains.  If we want terrorists to stop hating us, we must treat their people with respect.  Instead of placing restrictions on our people, we must make adjustments to our foreign policy.