QUANTIFYING THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY:

Measuring Lost Freedom vs. Security in Dollars: In an unusual analysis, top advisers to President Bush want to weigh the benefits of tighter domestic security against the "costs" of lost privacy and freedom. (EDMUND L. ANDREWS, 3/11/03, NY Times)

Civil liberties and privacy may be priceless, but they may soon have a price tag.

In an unusual twist on cost-benefit analysis, an economic tool that conservatives have often used to attack environmental regulation, top advisers to President Bush want to weigh the benefits of tighter domestic security against the "costs" of lost privacy and freedom.

"People are willing to accept some burdens, some intrusion on their privacy and some inconvenience," said John Graham, director of regulatory affairs at the White House Office of Management and Budget. "But I want to make sure that people can see these intangible burdens."

In a notice published last month, the budget office asked experts from around the country for ideas on how to measure "indirect costs" like lost time, lost privacy and even lost liberty that might stem from tougher security regulations.

The budget office has not challenged any domestic security rules, and officials say they are only beginning to look at how they might measure costs of things like reduced privacy. But officials said they hoped to give federal agencies guidance by the end of the year. And even if many costs cannot be quantified in dollar terms, they say, the mere effort to identify them systematically could prompt agencies to look for less burdensome alternatives. [...]

Jarring as it may seem to assign a price on privacy or liberty, the idea has attracted an unusual array of supporters, including Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate and former presidential candidate, who said the approach might expose wrong-headed security regulations.

This will draw predictable yelps about reducing freedom to dollar signs, but the hidden importantance of this kind of analysis lies not just in the national security sphere but in the social welfare sphere. Apply this kind of analysis to things like taxation, environmental regulation, government entitlements vs. privatized programs, etc. and you can see why this is so attractive to the Administration. Meanwhile, by the time the Naders and ACLU types figure that out we may well have established the idea in peoples' minds--at long last--that security and freedom are opposing ideals. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 11, 2003 11:37 AM