Aftermath
Smart Business, December 2001/January 2002
by Thomas Claburn
For insight into the legislative and social repercussions of the September 11 terrorist attacks, we spoke with David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.–based public policy research foundation. He is the author of Libertarianism: A Primer (Free Press, 1997) and the editor of The Libertarian Reader.
Are any of the proposed laws that have been introduced since September 11, like the USA PATRIOT Act, really appropriate and effective responses to terrorism?
Some of them are appropriate and effective. Certainly the attention to improving intelligence and to beefing up the parts of the military that are actually relevant to fighting terrorism are appropriate, and I hope they'll be effective. [But] there are a lot of pieces of legislation being tied to this that I think are not appropriate, will not be effective, don't have anything to do with terrorism.
How do we protect liberty without locking it up for its own safety?
People have proposed, for instance, a national ID card. [Advocates say] a national ID card would have prevented what happened on September 11. Well, there's no evidence for that. The people who did the attacks had legal papers, legal passports.
Do you think that allowing passengers to carry firearms would result in fewer incidents of violence on planes?
Well, I'm not sure. I think it's at least arguable that that would result in less violence. Certainly I think it would make it much more difficult to do the sort of thing that happened on September 11.
Where does the government's responsibility for security end and industry's responsibility begin?
The government's responsibility is for national security. It's supposed to protect us from incoming missiles, armies, and terrorists. Industry's responsibility is its own plants, its own offices. Probably the real definition is if the threat is to the survival of the business, then it is really up to the shareholders to determine how much they want to spend on protecting their investment.
Are there any technologies enlisted in the war on terrorism that threaten freedom to a greater extent than they guarantee safety?
The money-laundering provisions of the antiterrorism bill will do little to impede terrorists and could simply punish countries that have low taxes. Rather than swamp financial authorities with more information about more people than they could ever wade through, we should focus on improving intelligence.
