opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
10 Feb 2016
High-Tech Ted

Politicians tailor their messages to different audiences. Facing New Hampshire's primary, Ted Cruz talked … Read More.

3 Feb 2016
Political Arrogance

After the Iowa caucus results, it looks like Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio in November! They lead the … Read More.

27 Jan 2016
Running on Empty

Cars run on fuel. Politicians run on votes, and they'll do almost anything to get them. That includes … Read More.

Terror and Safety


This week, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the National Security Agency's data mining violates our Fourth Amendment right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers" and is "tyranny that our founders rebelled against." Good for him.

In an op-ed, he adds, "We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked," and wonders "which parts of the Constitution this government will next consider negotiable." Good for him. I'm glad at least one senator reminds Big Government that our Constitution limits federal power.

And many libertarians are furious at this latest intrusion of "Big Brother."

So what's wrong with me? I just can't get that worked up about it.

I know Big Data now in NSA computers probably includes my phone calls. (I hope it's just time, duration, location and recipients, not my words, too, but I'm not sure.)

I know the snooping may be unnecessary. Government's claim that it prevents terror is weak: Officials say a terrorist was caught, but New York City police say he was caught via other methods. I'm skeptical about the very claim that any terribly important "secrets" are held by unhappy 29-year-olds and 4.8 million other people (that's how many Americans hold security clearance for classified material).

So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not. Why?

I need to keep thinking about this issue, but for now, two reasons:

1. Terrorists do want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots.

2. My electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on.

They know with whom I talk, what interests me and how much time I spend doing this or that. They creep me out with targeted ads. How did they know I want that?! Oh, right ... I spent an hour searching ...

Then I go outside in New York City, where 16 cameras record me on my way to work.

Greedy lawyers can subpoena my private records.

My employer has a right to read my emails.

My privacy is already blown.

I'm angrier about other things Big Government does in the name of keeping me safe: forcing me to wear safety gear, limiting where I may go, stripping me at airports, forcing me to pay $2,300 for more military than we need.

Actually, $2,300 is the average Americans pay for our military. I pay more. The total for all of us is more than $700 billon a year, which is, as Chris Preble of the Cato Institute pointed out on my TV show, "more than we spent at the peak of the Cold War ... fighting the Soviet Union."

The danger was greater then, when we had a nuclear Soviet Union threatening to "bury us."

Much of America's defense spending goes to defend our allies in Europe and Asia. They spend less because we spend more.

"We are suckers," said Preble. "I don't blame them. If I were in their situation, if someone else was offering to pay for my security, I'd let them do it."

And it's not clear that we do what we do efficiently. The U.S. Department of Defense is prone to the same sorts of inefficiency that plagues other parts of government. The department's brownie recipe is 26 pages long.

Military officials say al-Qaida has been weakened. Iran (someday) may build a nuclear bomb, but we managed to deter China and Russia when they had thousands.

Some people want the U.S. military to police the world: Contain China, transform failed states, chase terrorists, train foreign militaries, protect sea lanes, protect oil supplies, stop genocide, protect refugees, maintain bases in allied countries, police our southern border, stop drug trafficking and spread good through humanitarian missions. The list is endless, which is the problem.

The U.S. military can't be everywhere. And we can't hand the government unlimited power and unlimited money every time a potential crisis looms.

We must remain on guard against threats. But bankruptcy may be the greatest threat.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "No They Can't: Why Government Fails, but Individuals Succeed." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="" <>></a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at




3 Comments | Post Comment
I agree with you on this -- this is the reply I sent to Rand Paul when I received his request to sign his petition:
Yes, the government is definitely intrusive and way too big -- but no, I don't agree with you on this issue. If you think we have any privacy at all in these times of email, the internet and social media, you are simply mistaken. And if even a handful of terrorists are targeted and watched because of these practices, I'm all for it. What do those of us who are not engaged in criminal activity have to hide?
I agree with you about Benghazi and I consider myself to be a Republican on most issues -- but you sound a little ridiculous to be calling for us to "stand up and take back our rights." As far as privacy is concerned, that horse left the barn right around the time that Al Gore invented the internet...
Comment: #1
Posted by: V. Wurthmann
Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:11 AM
Hi John,

I see your points. I wonder by reading them, what your basis for libertarianism is? Mine is the non-aggression principle. Of course, you probably know that eliminates the acceptance of government in my life and the rejection of my forced slavery. It also allows clear moral judgements on acts such as these NSA agents. No act is moral unless voluntary, regardless of it being benign, malignant or neutral. This NSA spying is malignant, under the guise of benign, and you claim it is neutral. NAP says, doesn't matter, it is immoral.

If NAP isn't the basis of your libertarianism then what is? If it is... then you are performing feats of cognitive dissonance with this post, which you are usually good at avoiding.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Patrick D.B. Voluntaryist
Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:06 PM
If you aren't worried John, you haven't been paying attention. When the FBI found that the Boston Bomber had telephoned his wife after the bombing, they said that they had ways to see what was said, although that information is not necessarily admissible in court. That tells me that all of our phone calls are being recorded, for review if our names come up in an investigation. I've also read that hackers can turn on webcams without turning on the red light that lets you know you are broadcasting. How are we to know that they aren't always on, just recording unless the government decides they want to look closer? Would they alert us if they were? I'm not so sure.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Steve McGregor
Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:43 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
John Stossel
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Star ParkerUpdated 10 Feb 2016
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 10 Feb 2016
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 10 Feb 2016

18 Dec 2013 Look Back in Liberty 2013

26 May 2010 Going "Green"

2 Jun 2010 Fight Bigotry Without Government