Those who give up a little freedom for a little security will end up with neither?

Question

All governments are against liberty.

Answer 1

Perhaps, but at least in the U.S. it's rather lopsided. So called Civil Liberty groups are up in arms about the Patriot Act however quite content about suppression on other issues. Government with their blessing has dictated whether a private business can have smokers in their establishments, how they cook their food, language (PC) and even whom gets more protection of the laws than others.

It's puzzling, to me at least, how the slippery slope scenario is attributed to only certain aspects privacy but not to others.

Answer 2

I'm not sure I agree with you. At first glance, your statement sounds plausible. But, after about 3 seconds of consideration, it starts to take on water quickly. The statement is generalized and inaccurate. If we do not cede the freedom to do whatever we please, we would live in an anarchaic society. As a police officer, I see the need for the rule of law, and the value of it. I am not willing to cede some of my freedoms period. However, I am willing to give a little in some areas. Today's world is a dangerous place, and if we don't take some steps to guard against those who will try to harm us, they will do so with impunity. Yes, there has to be some common sense and oversight in what can be seen as intrusive surveillance, but we can't let our enemies operate with impunity because we are scared of being overheard. I mean, really, is it worth it to you to be completely free from surveillance at the cost of bombs going off in our cities, in our schools, killing our family members? How do you propose to stop this, or should we just let it happen? I guarantee those that cry about "Big Brother" watching too closely will also be the first ones whining that he did not do enough when the next attack happens on our soil.

Answer 3

I am only a layman but have read many books dealing with history. I find your statement makes a great deal of sense. You can see certain patterns repeated in many countries and in many different eras. We would be wise to protect our own freedoms as well as the freedom of others. I believe it is simply human nature to want to legislate until everything is nice and comfy - but comfy for whom? With each new law there is a cost (in terms of money, freedom, mobility, etc.) If you had lived at least 60 years in America you would know
what freedoms have been tossed away for the common good.

Answer 4

You are far too late for this one...

Born of a wrong era. Little freedoms were eaten away years ago and today you see what's left- and it's being eroded as we speak.

People need to be allowed to make dumb decisions and suffer consequences so that stupid people can't continue breeding.

Answer 5

So are the BNP.

This person has multiple accounts with the sole purpose of promoting BNP policy. This is a suspendable offence under Yahoo guidelines.

Answer 6

You are right. What people fail to realise is, "There is no such thing as security, the only time you are secure is when you are dead."

So why promise security if it cant be delivered?

Some people are mentally in a perpetual state of war.

Answer 7

Here, here. Government will and has used the terrorist issue to introduce a whole heap of new surveillance laws,

Edit; banning the protest at Heathrow on the grounds of security is one example.

Answer 8

What a load of rubbish.

So do away with Governments. Lets all live like savages, shooting and killing each other. And then what happens to the old and the young and those who can't protect themselves? Oh well survival of the fittest right?

I never understand this Yank obsession with anti-Government. I wouldn't want to live in anarchy.

Answer 9

sure ! google Brad Love Canada

Answer 10

and your questioon is....:? but to counter your sage wisdon,,those of liberal persuasion who bury their head in the sand not considering the reality and necessity of conflict will ultimately serve the enemy. the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.