RISING ABOVE THE DIN :

'Ordered liberty' : The U.S.A. Patriot Act upholds the rule of law, which ensures freedom. (Viet D. Dinh, August 6, 2002, Orange County Register)

When the nation is under attack, the natural answer to the first question - what are we fighting for? - is: for the security of America and the safety of her people. That answer naturally pits security against other societal values and leads some to recite Benjamin Franklin's now-famous statement, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That we are fighting for security and safety is a true enough answer, but I do not think it is a complete answer. In this sense I agree with Franklin and those who quote him that one should not trade liberty (let alone essential liberty) for safety (let alone a little temporary safety). But the trade-off between security and liberty is a false choice. That is so because security should not be (and under our constitutional democracy, is not) an end in itself, but rather simply a means to the greater end of liberty.

However, my agreement with Franklin's statement does not settle the debate but only begins the conversation. For the essential question is, What do we mean by liberty? Here, I think Edmund Burke puts it best: "The only liberty I mean is a liberty connected with order; that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them." In other words, ordered liberty. Order and liberty, under this conception, are symbiotic; each is necessary to the stability and legitimacy that is essential for a government under law.

It's probably worth listening to Mr. Dinh, since he's a future Supreme Court Justice. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 7, 2002 10:15 AM