Freedom vs Safety

[C'jais]

To all Americans here: Which exact freedoms is it that you're currently being stripped off?

 

I get the feeling you still have it quite well over there, despite a little extra safety being forced upon you. Or is it the very act of them being forced upon you that you feel conflicts with your God-given constitution?

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by Cjais

To all Americans here: Which exact freedoms is it that you're currently being stripped off?

 

I get the feeling you still have it quite well over there, despite a little extra safety being forced upon you. Or is it the very act of them being forced upon you that you feel conflicts with your God-given constitution?

 

Most people i'm sure are referring to the restriction of freedom of speech and protection of privacy. I woulnd't call it being "stripped."

 

For instance, you are now checked very...thoroughly, at airports. Also things like the FBI can phone tap you without a warrant, stuff like that.

[Admiral Odin]

I don't really think this topic should be Freedom vs Safty since everyone has really agreed a balance is needed between the two. It should be Privacy vs Safty, since that really is the issue (at lest in the US).

 

I'm not in favor of the Gov. not needing judicial approval to tap a person's phone, or accessing their personal computer. At the moment it is a question of how much privacy should we give up to be safe.

 

For me, it entirely depends on the location. I should have a lot of privacy while on my property, (including my pc). Where if I'm in a public place, safty should be the primary concern.

 

Some people argue that it infringes on the 4th amendment for gov. officials to conduct random bag searches in airports. I feel otherwise, bag searches should be done to keep me and others safe.

 

Now Random house searches shouldn't be done since that goes directly against the 4th amendment. (I only use this example to make my point clear that location depends upon which should take precedence).

 

The question before us is where do we draw a line between safty and privacy.

[Zygomaticus]

Although Freedom and Privacy are two different things - aren't they kinda related?

 

I mean, freedom to go about your way without any government hinderance is analogous to privacy.

[Admiral Odin]

Freedom is a very broad term and encompasses many things. Privacy is just more specific....

[Jon Snow]

For me, it entirely depends on the location. I should have a lot of privacy while on my property, (including my pc). Where if I'm in a public place, safty should be the primary concern.

 

You should have absolute privacy on your property... does that mean if you're on some plot of land you own in the arctic secretly building bombs to ship them to Iraq we shouldn't invade your phone lines b/c it's your property but should only hope we can find them when you give them to a vacationing family to the caribbean to give to your ally in jamaica? And who defines your property? Your pc may be yours, but if you go on the net, are you not on internationally owned property? Do YOU own the Interent? Thus, according to you, we should not check your pc although you could be sending viruses through your modem, only a piece of H/W that doesn't even require a connection to the "public Internet" to send a file. And then, in public, if safety is the primary concern, what about embarrassement of people? Although I am completely against the current ethnic profiling against arabs, it does promote safety. My dad and I spent an hour debating the topic, and although we both agree it is completely morally wrong to endorse segregation in practice it is useful. It is known the majority of terrorists will be arabic in origin. Thus, to provide improved safety we should only harass and embarrass arab ppl to stop terrorists, for we know we will stop more terrorists b/c we would have more ressources on the arabs instead of thinning them out among caucasians, asians, blacks and other racists. And if we only want safety, than should we allow criminals to ever walk the streets again, and you must obviously believe very strongly in capital punishment ... but wait, we're taking away the safety of that person who committed a crime for the possible danger towards someone else on the chance that this person will commit another atrocity, and to send a message to people who consider removing someone else's safety through perpetration of a crime. Is the right of all stronger than the right of one.

 

Anyways, I'm not trying to be too mean, but I hope you can see why this issue is so complicated and why you can't just say this is the only answer, b/c we don't need just one thing. There are a thousand different things a thousand different people want, and we can never please everyone.

[Admiral Odin]

First off, please read what I wrote. I never said absolute privacy, nor did I say that in public places safty should be the only thing. I also never stated or implied that this was easy and not complicated. I did say that picking is easy since a balance must exist. Where that balance is however is decidly more complicated (which I did say)

 

What I did say was when I'm on private property I believe I am entitled to more privacy then if I was in a public place. Now this is under the basis that I was not commiting a crime. If I was then the police would have to go before a judge get a warrant, and then they would be able to do impede on my privacy (for instance accessing personal files).

 

Futhermore, while in public places (like airports) then safty should take precedence over privacy. In other words if they conduct random bag searches I feel that is alright. (This doesn't mean a person is allowed no privacy just that it is reduced same as Freedom of speech, you can't say certain words in airports.)

 

Police officers should be allowed only to enter a house if A. they have permission, B. They have a warrant, C. There is reasonable cause to belive that a crime is in process. Going into random people's home goes against the 4th amendment. Which prohibts Illegal searchs and siezures. In other words for police to enter private property they must do what I said above.

 

If you are commiting a crime then you forfiet your right to privacy.

 

Personal Property falls under sales law and is everything I hold title which is not permantly attached to the land. (Example: My pc, or my car). Real property (aka real estate) is everthing permantly attached to the land. You also own everything upto the highest point on the land and everything below the property to the center of the earth.

 

On a side note, I do belive in capital punishment. I belive some criminals deserve death. Also many will tell you that the needs of teh many out weight the needs of the few.

 

Finally please read what I write instead of skewing it....

[Jon Snow]

Admiral, sorry if I came off as a bit harsh, but I didn't mean it as an insult to you but to prove a point. We're here debating an extremely complex issue that is way too hard to just say safety or freedom or balance. At this point we've all agreed on a balance, but none of us can agree on how to balance it. I, probably because I'm a Canadian, feel that the Americans have become way too security conscious for unnecessary reasons. I don't think 9/11 is the worst tradegy to ever happen (how about the Holocaust or any other major genocide?), nor do I think there is that high a risk of it happening again. Although Al-Qaeida are a threat, I truly think we've overpanicked, as if terror has been instilled on us and were trying to fight that own terror through the war on terrorrism.

 

As to my post, if it offended you I'm sorry and will edit it if you so wish. I was trying to debate it from a pure debate form, in the sense of trying to bash the arguments the same way someone would bash mine to see how strongly I can defend them. And, the word primary is defined as on http://www.dictionary.com as "First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal." That of course can be read as either A) Safety is more important than freedom, or, B)Safety is of utmost importance (highest in rank) Because of your general attitude towards this topic from the other posts, I interpreted it leaning more towards (B) as long as your basic law given freedoms were granted and thus believed that what I said could hold true. And again, the word 'balance' has nothing to do with which way the balance swings. A balance of 1% and 99% is as much a balance as 50% and 50%. You never said what an appropriate balance is nor the term equal balance. Just like saying we need to balance prosperity with recession to keep a healthy long term business cycle does not imply we must spend half our time in prosperity and half our time in recession (I don't know what the ratio is though). Besides, the situation I gave you were POSSIBLE situations according to your opinion, which is why you have to consider those before giving an opinion.

 

BTW, please understand this is not an insult towards you or your opinion, this is just meant to be a heated debate in the same style as governments would be having them now, very picky on language, trying to find holes in the other person's speeches. I find that type of argument and thinking extremely interesting and fun to do when it's not serious b/c it forces all of us to think quickly and analyze completely. And why are you so fixated on police searches, I think if someone listens to my inane conversations with friends or even a sappy conversation I'd have with a future g/f couldn't really harm if I didn't know someone was listening and didn't know me to even care about these irrelevant convos on the grand scheme of things. And if the cops found someone b/c of it, I'd be ecstatic. Although it may break an admendment, in practice it's wrong, in reality it's beneficial. I suppose the same thing could be said about my personal issues (ethnic profiling and increased security), except my issues do have a direct tangible harm on the segment of the population affected by it, and that's why I wanted to show you those examples before you say pro-safety, b/c there are always counter examples.

 

If this is getting too heated, then we can tone it down. Otherwise, we can keep this interesting and not let it get personal. And now we can see why governments have so much trouble dealing with issues... b/c at least we know our decisions won't matter and affect the world, there's will and we can already see the communication problems we're having!

[Surfnshannon]

Hum - well do I think that we should be free to bring guns on a plane with us...no. Do I think that you should be free to carry a gun with you where ever you go? The answer is again no. Do I think that you should be free to learn how to pilot a big old airplane if you so desire...without any safety precautions no. We have to sacrifise some freedoms for the good of being safe. Now do I feel that you shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets after 10 o clock because of a stupid curfew for safety. No. I think there are extremes and some stuff is un-necessary. Yes its is safer to have a curfew...but we shouldn't be caged animals. Warranted Precaution I say. It is okay to give up some minor freedoms in order to maintain a safe place to live. But when you talk about major freedoms to give up - then you are going to have to show me a MAJOR safety issue. If you told me there is a curfew at 10 o clock because Terrorists plan on coming in and killing whomever is walking the streets at that time. Then I say - yes a curfew is needed.

[Admiral Odin]

The reason why I nor anyone else stated where the balance should be, is because we do not know and there really is no perfect answer. Also if you look at the question it asked which do you prefer not how much and an abritray figure can't work either. There are to many situations and vairables to have it fixed. Location is one, here is another example that is broader.

 

The only thing that annoyed me was you took what I said for extermes. The word Primary means that safty is higher up then other things but by no means the sole item to take into consideration. Also you will note I said privacy and not freedom (Freedom is to broad of a word to really talk about in such arbitray terms).

 

If I'm working at an embassy where there is a good chance terrorist may attack the building. Then safty takes precedant for the sheer fact that there is a greater chance of a person of trying to kill me. Where if I'm in the middle of the US then safty is less of a concern.

 

I use police searches purely for easy to understand examples. Also as freedom is taken away for safty police gain more powers. One of the most recent things I can remember concerning this topic was whether or not the FBI should be allowed to tap phones without a warrant. I'm not sure if this was passed or not, but if it was I belive the new power would be open to a lot of abuse. I don't belive the government should be allowed to listen to my converstations for no reason. (Look at the book 1984 very good for what happens if freedoms are taken away).

 

The question asked which you would prefer, safty or freedom (it seems to imply that the extremes of the two). In which case the simple answer is balance between the two. Now the hard question is where is that balance. The answer to that is there is no one balance between the two. It has to be flexible and changes upon the circumstances. Just as STTCT said, when the vairbles change so does the balance.

[Young David]

I have to agree here with someone who said that it has to be balanced. Freedom without safety is like the wild west where everyone has a gun and has the right to kill you. You have the same rights and do whatever you want ... all the freedom ... no safety.

 

The other side is a prison. Noone will harm you, you will live long. But you have to do everything the government says, you jump when they say you jump. You speak when they tell you to speak ... and you read the lines they hold before your eyes. You believe what they believe. Pretty much hell.

 

Balance ...

 

Every American blames things on 9/11. Europeans think a bit different than that. Since 9/11 Americans became paranoïa, and if you didn't, your president did. Safety was harmed? Then safety will be restored, and if freedom has to become a little less, than so be it. And that's the danger, the balance is gone. A while ago I read that someone was arrested because he was talking about a 'burning bush'... if you read your bible you know what this man was really talking about.

 

There's a country in the middle-east who may produce weapons of mass destruction that can be used against the U.S. So they have to be destroyed. It has not yet been proven, but Bush is already transporting lots of troops to the middle-east. He will attack, no matter what. Who's the real danger in this story?

 

I fear the U.S. as long as Bush reigns it. Altough our country officially will support the U.S. in an attack, most people here do not. In fact, sympathy for the U.S. here is very low at the moment.

 

Any leader who chooses between safety and freedom is dangerous.