CAN JUST WE LIVE WITH TERRORISM?

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE FIVE ARTICLES

PUBLISHED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

Sometimes we must go back to the very basics. Why do we need a state after all?
Hobbes was very clear on the issue. There is a social contract between the individual and
the state. The currency we are dealing in is power and the social contract stipulates a
massive transfer of power from the individual to the state. The commodity to be supplied
by the state for the currency paid is security. The loss of power by the individual is
directly translatable to a loss of certain freedoms or at least autonomy. The gain in power
by the state is directly translatable to a gain in its freedom of action. Since nature abhors
vacuum the void left by the individual is immediately filled by the state.
Terrorists may choose among an endless list of targets readily available in an
open society. Attempts at economic terrorism, such as tampering with merchandise, and
the even more ubiquitous cyber-terrorism, show that these venues exist and are
considered. So why do the terrorists keep attacking targets that are core components of
the above-mentioned social contract? Because their ultimate target is not the delicate
fabric of democracy, nor popular morale but our very social contract. The ultimate
message they want to convey is that the state defaulted in the delivery of that most basic
of service: security.
States can cope with the issue in several ways. The most obvious one is to oppose
by force any disturbance of the established business cycle, i.e. counter-terrorism.
Another, more subtle way is to claim that what looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and
quacks like a duck is a Kentucky fried chicken. The purpose of the exercise is to deny
that the social contract has suffered any harm. This can be achieved by:
1) Denying political intent e.g. mental illness
2) Softening political intent e.g. poverty and not religion as motivation
3) Denying significance e.g. quantitative parallels with bathtubs

4) Denying or minimizing blame to the perpetrator implying that the blame lies
elsewhere, usually their domestic opponents
This last approach will usually find a supporting chorus among: the perpetrators
and their fellow travelers, the appeasers and Lenins useful idiots.
At least since Milton Friedman we are all aware that inflation is taxation without
legislation. Inflating the security-currency may fool some in the short run but can fool
nobody in the long run. The harm to social contract will be much more severe when the
individual finally discovers that not only was he denied the services outsourced to the
state, but that his business associate acted in a fraudulent way.
Thus, both morality and good business practice dictates that the state starts to
fulfill its contractual obligations toward the citizen as soon and as scrupulously as
possible. Trying to excuse inaction or inefficiency by abstract nouns such as globalization
or multilateralism will do no good. The customer may excuse some flops in the delivery
but no dishonest practices. The raison d'tre of the state is to provide security, all the
other niceties are later embellishments on the Hobbesian construct. When the individual
discovers that the state is not delivering the goods he or she will turn to any other source
willing and able to take up the task. The meteoric rise of the Islamic State is a case to the
point.