Security is the new religion that steals individual freedom

As many observers have noted, staying safe has become a religion. “Safe,” as it is sometimes called, like all religions, places what it values ​​- in this case, being safe – above other values.

Securityism explains the willingness of Americans to abandon their most cherished values, including freedom, in the name of security for a year and a half.

Millions of Americans have not only given up their right to go to work, earn a living, go to church or synagogue, and visit friends and relatives, they have even given up their right. to visit dying relatives and friends.

It can be assumed that almost all of the people recorded as having died from COVID-19 have died without having a single loved one by their bedside from the time they entered a hospital until their death.

The acceptance of such cruelty – irrational and unscientific cruelty, it might be added – can only be explained by the failure of generations of schools and parents to teach freedom, while successfully teaching freedom. cult of security.

If your father had to die alone, it was worth it for safety reasons; if your mother was to be in solitary confinement in a nursing home for more than a year, that too was worth it for safety reasons. And, of course, if political leaders and scientific and medical leaders have to lie for the sake of security, so be it; truth, too, is less important than safety.

None of this is new. Twenty-five years ago, I wrote and broadcast about Americans’ desire to watch individual rights crushed in the war on smoking, and in particular to accept the absurdity of the supposedly deadly dangers of second-hand smoke.

No one denies that intense exposure to secondhand smoke can exacerbate pre-existing conditions such as asthma. But the claim by anti-tobacco fanatics that 50,000 Americans die each year from exposure to second-hand smoke is nonsense.

For example, in 2013, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported that there was no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and second-hand smoke exposure.

Yet in the name of that absurd claim of 50,000 a year, people were prohibited not only from smoking on airplanes – which, for the sake of courtesy, was appropriate – but even in smoking rooms.

In the city of Burbank, California, ruled for decades by leftists who, like all leftists, despise individual freedom, smoking is banned even in cigar shops. Despite the fact that no one is forced to work in a cigar store, and even if the store is well ventilated, smoking is prohibited.

What’s important to note is that these irrational prohibitions on personal freedom bothered no one except smokers. The number of non-smoking Burbank citizens who opposed these laws was likely nil.

If Burbank had announced the alcohol ban, there would have been a revolt, despite the fact that at least half of spousal and child abuse cases are accompanied by alcohol, and every case of death , brain damage, paralysis and other permanent injuries caused by a drunk driver is caused by alcohol.

Has anyone been killed by a smoking driver? Was anyone murdered, or was a child or spouse assaulted or beaten because the murderer or abuser smoked?

So security fanatics learned from the crusade against smoking and second-hand smoke the big lesson that if you told Americans that something was not safe, you could deny them their rights and they would gladly accept it. . And, for the record, this is also true in virtually every country in the world. “Uber safety alles.”

They have not only learned this lesson from the anti-tobacco fanatics. For two generations, security has increasingly deprived Americans of the joys and freedoms. The children, in particular, were so pampered that American children of the last two generations probably had a lot less joy and a lot more fear than children of any previous American generation.

Young children cannot walk around on their own for fear that child protection services will be called; diving boards, which were once found in almost all domestic swimming pools, are largely prohibited; and monkey bars and swings have been removed from the playgrounds. As an article from the Australian Babyology website headlines: “Monkey bars are dangerous and should be removed from playgrounds, experts say. “

Young people up to the age of 15 cannot fly without adult supervision by the airline. Why not? I flew alone from Miami to New York when I was 7, and no one thought my parents had acted irresponsibly.

Two Norwegian scientists, Ellen Sandseter (Queen Maud University College of Early Childhood Education) and Leif Kennair (Norwegian University of Science and Technology), wrote a study on children and risky games published in Evolutionary Psychology in which they concluded:

We can observe an increase in neuroticism or psychopathology in society if children are prevented from participating in risky games appropriate to their age.

The desire to lead as secure a life as possible is a major factor in why fewer and fewer young Americans are getting married and even fewer are having children. Neither marriage nor having children is safe. Both are fraught with risk.

The headline of an article published last week on NBC’s “Today” show website reads: “Adults without children are as happy as parents, study finds.”

Aside from whether one can compare the happiness of two groups of people with totally different experiences (would it be meaningful to say that most dogs are happier than humans?) – or even if the one can expect honest answers (how many people claim that their lifestyle choices have made them unhappy?) – the article illustrates the point of this column well. “Be safe” would certainly include not getting married and not having children.

You can live a safe life. Or you can live a full life. You cannot experience both.


The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here should be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Do you have an opinion on this article ? To ring, please send an email [email protected] and we will consider posting your amended remarks in our usual “We Hear You” section. Be sure to include the URL or title of the article as well as your name and city and / or state.