Let's "assume" for this question's sake, that we were able to guarantee a 90% reduction in violent crime and a 0% chance of another terrorist attack on US soil. But for this to happen, US citizens would have to vote and pass a new law requiring "everyone" to be in doors every day from 10pm to 6am. Would you vote for or against that law and why?
2006-10-14 20:51:42 · 17 answers · asked by GrayTheory 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Once again, this is a hypothetical - can we avoid picking apart the plausibility of this? The point is to find out what level of freedom you're willing to set aside for security.
2006-10-14 21:05:36 · update #1
I get the tenet of your question and I am gratified it is written in such a cogent manner.
What I have always said is that the so called CONS who will support Bush's attack on our freedoms only do this because of the fact that there has not been a tangible effect on their lives. Once one of them or their families become directly affected all hell will break loose and by their history, McVeigh etc.. will be the first to take up arms and cause bombs to be exploded to protect their perceived freedoms.
These people are the biggest hypocrites that have ever existed and they piss me off.
2006-10-14 21:31:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It isn't possible. The U.S functions on a 24 hr a day shift. Think of all the jobs that run 24 hrs a day. They are not going to shut down production in America. You could never guarantee a reduction in crime do to a curfew. Do you actually think that criminals are going to abide by this law if it were to go into effect? And how could a curfew in anyway effect when another country attacks us? No I would never vote for a law that allowed goverment to have so much control over our lives.
2006-10-14 20:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by kandekizzez 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm really not into government interfering with our personal rights. So just on my principles, I'm going to have to say I'd vote against the law. But that 90% reduction in violent crime and 0% of a terrorist attack does sound nice.
2006-10-14 20:55:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell to the Naw! The whole thing that gets terrorists off is that they would like to hinder whatever freedoms we have as Americans. A curfew would just be saying that they succeeded. And just like I put up a brave front to ride out with my friends in the toughest streets in Brooklyn in the middle of the night after club hopping, potential crime has never stopped me! I can't let the lawless dictate my life-I will not be agoraphobic because they want to act stupid.
Let's just say I'd rather die with my freedoms, than to live without them. Amen!
2006-10-14 21:00:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
against it. and i don't live in the us. but that would be like imposing a prison sentence on a country who stands for freedom for all. how free is that idea? that wouldn't solve the problem. the problem is the nations are not united. working on loving your fellow man, your neighbour is where you need to start. start from within and when you go in your own community, how are you? do you smile at a stranger? hold a door open, no matter who it is.......not just elder or women. do you let someone pass you when driving? when you breed love and respect thats what you get back. if 90% of the population did this with everyone........how much would our world change then?
2006-10-14 20:56:12 · answer #5 · answered by Jody SweetG 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would vote against this law because I personally believe in the rights of the constitution to allow the freedom of Americans to work, recreate, sleep, and socialize at any place and time that they want as permitted by federal law. Obviously this law would never pass because there would be a constitutional controversy and a conservative upheaval if it did. This country was based on freedom and governed by laws that promote democratic social values and opportunities. (btw i consider myself a liberal on most accounts).
2006-10-14 21:05:36 · answer #6 · answered by Dennis N 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, seeing it is in the US, I'm guessing everyone who says NO will not vote (or forget to), while the few who says YES will vote, and the YES will end up winning by 1 or 2 votes.
2006-10-14 20:55:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, that's rediculous. But if for some reason it worked, I guess it might be an okay price to pay not to have another 9/11.
2006-10-14 20:56:00 · answer #8 · answered by city_savvy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hell no..
America was built on violence and so we go hand in hand.
There isn't a police force large enough to enforce a National curfew, and if there was, I wouldn't want to pay for it!
:)
2006-10-14 20:55:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because the terrorists and the criminals who use fear tactics to get what they want would have effectively destroyed our way of life.
that's when they win.
2006-10-14 20:55:40 · answer #10 · answered by stelle d. 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋