Liberty, Fear, and the Leviathan: Trading Freedom for Security

A heated debate rages on in the United States today concerning the second amendment and the individual right to bear arms in the wake of yet another tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.  The nation appears rather firmly divided on the issue, with many arguing their constitutional rights must not be infringed, while others point to the ever-growing number of gun-related fatalities as evidence that legislation must be passed to limit this freedom.

While this polarized conversation may seem a uniquely American discourse, it is in fact part of a much larger global debate. 

Indeed, the contentious idea of exchanging liberty for security has been circulating for quite some time, particularly in the wake of September 11, 2001.  As waves of terrorist attacks crashed upon the shores of Western Democracy, states were obliged to assess the scope of individual liberty and how it must be altered to allow for the safety and security of its citizens.

Most states responded by encroaching upon certain freedoms in the name of protecting the perceived “common benefit” (Hobbes, 2000, p.78).  Examples include the Patriot Act and the advent of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the United States, travel bans in the United Kingdom and across Europe, and Canada’s 2015 counterterrorism law that provides the government with almost unchecked authority in monitoring and persecuting individuals suspected of terrorism, to name just a few (Tayler, 2017).

But what drives otherwise freedom-loving people to abandon what might be considered the very core of their belief system (that being the individual right to liberty) in favor of these intrusive laws?

For the answer, we turn to Thomas Hobbes and the realists who argue that fear is the driving force behind much, if not all, of civilization.

According to Hobbes (2000), there is much to be feared in the natural world.  “The unformed matter of the world,” he argues, “[is] a god by the name of Chaos” (p.51).

In his famous work, Leviathan, he paints the picture of man as a fearful species who is surrounded by danger and who “hath his heart all the day long gnawed on by fear of death, poverty, or other calamity”  (p.49).

Indeed, even the title “Leviathan,” inspires images of a mythical beast mentioned in the biblical Book of Job—a monster with a double coat of armor and fearsome teeth who spouts fire from its mouth and can be bested by no man (Job 41 New International Version).

In an effort to protect himself against the dangers of the world, man exhibits two qualities that, in my opinion, make up the foundation of Hobbes’ (2000) piece (and by extension, realist ideology). The first of these qualities being “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death”  (p.44) and the second being a willingness to “compound” our powers by consensually investing them “in one person, natural or civil, that has the use of all their powers depending on his will”  (p.38).

The latter sort of thing is the basis for the Leviathan or “commonwealth”, as Hobbes (2000) describes it, which is essentially the basis for the contemporary notion of the “nation-state”.  Not a person, but a combination of persons, the commonwealth is essentially a negotiated contract between sovereign citizens whereby individuals exchange certain “rights” that they are awarded via the natural order (where everyone has the “right” to everything [p.59]) in exchange for respite from the chaos and calamity of the natural world as well as protection offered by this perceived greater power.

With that said, it is safe to gather that protecting its citizens is one of the primary functions of the state or commonwealth (Hobbes, 2000, p.78).  In order to offer this protection, many states argue that it must erode upon individual rights.  It does so by instituting laws that by their very nature, restrict the freedoms associated with the unchecked, natural order, but that allay many of the fears associated with the aforementioned sort of world.

Indeed, Hobbes (2000) argues that the fear driving the want of such laws is not only compatible with liberty, but “consistent” with it.  “Fear and liberty are consistent,” he writes, “as when a man throweth his goods into the sea for fear the ship should sink, he doth it nevertheless very willingly, and may refuse to do it if he will; it is therefore the action of one that was free” (p.97).

Is it, therefore, just to assume that we must simply accept that our rights must be infringed if we are to enjoy the relative peace we have today?  In the case of the United States, for example, is it fair to conclude that freedom is exemplified by our free society's justly elected leaders exchanging certain liberties for our collective peace and security?

Some might argue that the proverbial "juice" is not worth the "squeeze" and that the state failed in providing the protection it is designed to offer.  In the case of the gun debate, for example, shooting deaths continue even in those places where gun free zones and assault weapons bans have been implemented. 

Despite the protection of the state, the fundamental distrust of one another discussed by Hobbes (2000) is still ever-present and our proverbial "doors" and "chests" remain locked because of it (p.57).

Is this fear, which serves as the driving force for these laws, rational and in implementing them are we targeting an actual threat or simply a “causeless fear” of some perceived “other” that seems a threat to the collective “us” camp (Hobbes, 2000, p.31)?

The above are all questions I hope to explore in more detail through our class discussions and in the comments below.

Hobbes, T. (2000). Leviathan. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Tayler, L. (2017). World Report 2017: Rights Trends in Overreach. Retrieved May 06, 2018, from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/global