Originally appeared in the magazine ' 22 '

I'm now a horn. Until you finish both, I will confront every time a matter of fine-tuning "horn" and more "more milk", depending on the consistency of melanjului. How tastes differ, it's plausible that people prefer the melanjuri consistent.
We carry the same adversativa and logic in the current dispute about reform of security laws. It will outline the two camps: one of those (usually in civilian clothes) who pleads for weakening the powers of the State power, in favor of private agents, and one of which (according to himself) opt for strengthening such privileges. Why do we baptize but Freedom versus security debate? There is no reason to call that last option "more security", as well as strengthening State power would automatically mean more security for all. It is clear that the two terms in opposition are not "freedom and security".
Language game of freedom with security adversativ e terribly misleading. Because hiding the worst option, loss by private agents of freedom and, with it, security, and hide and the main reason why we support freedom. The reason we support freedom is not just a matter of taste eccentric: freedom is good just as we solve problems, and especially the security problem. Rules which protects freedom and property were cemented as successful solutions of conflicts in which different actors-ordinary individuals, authorities, agents supraindividuali-isi threatened the security in various shapes to each other.
The way freedom guarantees security is not always obvious. There are hidden costs, but large, of the loss of freedom. The scheme is usually the following: loss of freedom apparently insignificant in favor of the State entail loss of several liberties, and in other areas, which, once lost, leave us more vulnerable.
It talks about a war against terror. If the use of terms had become so large, then we are at least 4,000 years in a war for the limitation of government power. What are the latest news on this front? A wave of legislative projects to increase reactive terrorist danger area of Government information services. New proposals asking companies to Telecom store in full telephone calls, e-mails to all our clients and allow services to access the databases, without too much hassle court agreement date. Surveillance mania is ready to destroy the private space and the only ones we throw at the foot of the saving powers of the national security service.
There are two types of antietatista reaction on the part of the civilian camp: a) to expose as surveillance mania is entitled-to say that the danger is not large enough to warrant a legislative change so significant; b) even if you recognize that terrorist danger was serious, to show that the proposed solution it's wrong there, as directed other than institutional solutions to strengthen the powers of the monopolistic power. Subscribe to both answers.
So what if they would listen to the phones? The most obvious danger to the individual would be disclosure for some things that he prefers to tina under silence. Many such things related to social prejudices that have nothing to do with how much harm can be done State. Some institutional analysis pull out but the dangers of the most profound, related to "competition" which have everything to do with the power of the State.
A liberal democracy depends on a balanced competition between power and opposition under the rule of law. But, with the help of service information located exclusively at his disposal, the group in power will be able to discover the unique strategies of political opponents and the reasons of blackmailing. If weapon information secret services will be strengthened and put into the service of power, the opposition will be weakened and controlled constantly. Without the possibility of a real opposition, soon citizens will no longer have a choice: will they be deprived of defense against arbitrary fees and settlements, which follows the road up freely. It is difficult to plan long-term economic projects, legislative and legal when the horizon is Misty. Entrepreneurs will be pushed by the institutional evolution to ensure against neprevazutului, cooperating with underground authorities. Otherwise, not only pasta, but the failure of the allotment: at any time will depend on the good will of so many laws, authorities, it's impossible not to be able to show you a few violators. Once you follow the road "co-operation", nothing will impede on businesses to protect themselves against potential new entrepreneurs and at the expense of the economy, by lobbying for new regulations.
Here is how a legislative change in a seemingly isolated scope of discussion in which the danger of terrorism was compared to the shame of being caught with inflatable sheep we projected in a discussion about the negative spiral of coniventei economy with authority policy. Morality is not just scenery as legislative change proposed has enough meaning that you might be entitled to. The scenario shows that the proposed measurement not only replace a dangerously ascendant power (State terrorism from external sources) with another (the State itself). We can conceive of institutional solutions to the problem of terrorism which avoid asymmetry?
Yes. One is increasing access to the special weapon: keeping information service as the only nationalizata, but putting it in the service of and under the control of pluralitati of representative bodies. And another, denationalizarea and gradual withdrawal from the monopolist nature providing special information and licensing, in the manner of a pluralitati graduated from private organizations. Organizations and groups will be so many that none will be able to win a decisive power upward, and at the same time the performance of the sector as a whole will evolve along with the competition. With increasing freedom to provide agents and buy safety, security and quality will increase.