Compromising principles for "security"

Paul Goodman writes an interesting piece at Con Home, although he seems to believe that we should give up a little of our freedom in order for the state to protect us.

He regards those who oppose that view as being "absolutists".

Absolutists?

Libertarians hold certain principles, based on logic and truth. When we begin to make exceptions to principles, those principle are compromised - frequently, for little more than political expediency or to "save costs". (E.g., the excuse for scrapping jury trials was expense).

Neither of these reasons or excuses is acceptable and the acceptance of these reasons by the body politic over past decades is what has landed us with the ridiculous, complicated, incoherent and contradictory clutch of laws that we now have on our statute books.

Politicians have become unpopular precisely because they have compromised their principles.

If holding true to one's principles is absolutism, then I'm proud to be an absolutist; it is not a dirty word, so let's not allow it to become one.

I do not believe it is necessary to give up a smidgeon of liberty in return for "security" offered by the state. If the state can't find suitable solutions to security issues, then it needs to try a bit harder.