What am I afraid of?

This blog is supposed to be a declaration against fear, an exhortation to all citizens to stop being such fraidy-cats and accept the burdens of freedom. Yet I speak regularly of my own fear of government. I guess I'm not saying we should fear nothing (I've always thought those "No Fear" logoes on t-shirts and other junk are silly). Fear is a healthy response to bad things, but only as long as we maintain control of that fear, and only as long as that fear arises in proper proportion to the various dangers that surround us.

So what's out there to inspire fear?

Terrorists? Yes, there are bad dudes* who want to break things and kill people. Thanks to the wonders of science, psychopaths of all inclinations have access to weapons of increasing capacity for destruction.

But what about governments? Bad dudes don't always hide in caves in Afghanistan (or apartments in Miami, London, Madrid, etc.) scheming to get hold of TNT, C-4, anthrax, and plutonium. Some bad dudes, generally those with better people skills, realize they can wreak even greater destruction and enjoy more perks by obtaining public office. A bad president or prime minister can oppress innocents through war, judicial action, taxation, etc.

So why have I chosen to criticize the fear of terrorism while promulgating my fear of governments?

I certainly recognize valid reasons for fearing terrorists. Terrorists can destroy cities and kill millions, at least in theory. The assassin of Archduke Ferdinand was able to spark World War I. On September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden's minions managed to kill 3000 and put a big dent in the American economy (short-term dip in consumer confidence, long-term fiscal reallocation to massive defense and Homeland Security spending).

But in a hundred years, Osama will likely be no more prominent in the history books than the anarchist bomb-throwers of the late 19th and early 20th century. Osama is a featherweight compared to the real demons of history: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot -- all leaders of governments whose power was not properly checked. Corrupt governments have killed more people, destroyed more wealth, imprisoned and oppressed more innocents than Osama ever will. And in America, Osama can't destroy the Constitution; only our cowardly Congress can pass and extend the "Patriot" Act.

I would thus argue that, dangerous as Osama and other terrorists may be, we have much more at stake in ensuring that our government (along with our citizenry) does not abandon the principles of liberty that make America the greatest achievement of Western civilization. Instead of calling 9-1-1 every time a shady character takes a picture of the Empire State Building, the common citizen does better to direct his vigilance toward voting and otherwise participating in politics to make sure his elected representatives preserve the Constitutional system of checks and balances.

Am I afraid of some psychopath detonating a nuclear bomb in Times Square? Absolutely. Am I afraid of the government revoking the Bill of Rights? Absolutely. The juicy question is, which am I more afraid of? Which are you more afraid of?

Or, at risk of creating a false dilemma, phrase it this way: if you could stop the complete destruction of New York City** by revoking the Bill of Rights, would you do it?

-------------------------
*Dudettes -- er, women -- don't seem nearly as inclined as men to break things and kill people. Hmmm....
**Replies from Red Sox fans will be viewed as biased. ;-)