A Momentous Forfeit: The Matter of National Security

Natasha Mundkur
Class of 2019

John Quincy Adams once said, “Men must be ready; they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasure, passions, and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.” In Adam’s deeply intelligible description of the bind that connects man together with other men and community, he is inherently describing the confines that create a functioning society and government. However, at a certain point, we must call upon ourselves to question the extent to which we are willing to forfeit our right to personal privacy for domestic security. To lightly elaborate, in order to protect the outlined rights and agree to form a community "for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and Estates (property)," (Locke 295) individuals surrender their natural power to act for self-preservation "to be regulated by the Laws made by the Society, so far forth as the preservation of himself, and the rest of that Society shall require" (Locke 298). In short, individuals must forfeit a portion of their personal freedom for the good of society as prescribed by the general will in order to enjoy social freedom and security.

Specifically, the general will of American society calls for increased national security and protection that demands capitulation of privacy. In doing so, the American people must sacrifice their personal confidentiality and privacy for the greater good. Since the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, national security in the country has expanded significantly to monitor phone calls of millions of Americans and their international communication to surveil terrorist activity in the states. Many critics to the model of increased security believe this surveillance violates constitutional rights that call for government transparency to the people, and not contrariwise. A similar situation exists in China. Though it identifies as a communist state, China affords its citizens with the freedom of speech and press, though heavily restricted. China limits media content to prevent illegitimization of authority through heavily guarded firewalls, thorough scrutinization of publications and websites, and jail time for dissenters including journalist, bloggers, and rights activists who violate their strict codes. The Chinese government justifies their strict rules as a defense against endangering the country and exposing state secrets. However, an important question remains: to what extent of protecting national security and government legitimacy can an individual's natural rights be violated?

Natasha Mundkur is a freshman McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville. She studies business, political science, and women and gender studies.