Seems pertinent to our current state of affairs.
“Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
It’s mostly elite-ists that think they know whats better for you than freedom. In my experience.
I would add a clarifying word to that statement: “extremists”
It seems that members of any one of the extremist groups (that is, the ultra-liberal, the ultra-conservative, the ultra-secular, and the fundamentalist religious movements) want to take away someone else’s freedom. Specifically someone with conflicting viewpoints. The scary part is when people that have actual power are prone to taking these sort of black and white stances it causes massive divisions in economical and societal demographics. The divisiveness of a “you’re with us or against us” attitude frightens and saddens me.
Are you sure not mostly libertarian? IF the one thing we can agree on is that people should not be forced to do things thay don’t want to do. i.e. swear alliegience to the state church, sign confeesions that there is no God, be forced to ascribe to somenone elses POV be they Nazi or PC. (1 Caveat being conscription when necessary) Then I don’t care too much about division.
Thats the greatness of this country is the constitution or more specifically the bill of rights. It protects people from government and other people.
I don’t know if I’m missing some background in the quote or not but I feel like I understand where you are coming from with this.
There is no such thing as good government, only limited governemnt.
You put the best man in the world in charge and give him absolute power and you know what best case you would have 80 years of peace then someone else gets absolute power- will they be as trustworthy? Is it worth finding out? Think of that on a continuum and look at where we are headed in the US.
We just approved the third year of “emergency powers” for government, the “small governement party” aka “republicans” aka “the other big government party” has expanded the size of governement and spending by I think 15% over the last 5 years. Yee-haw!
Where I can I turn-in 70% of the money I EARN to someone who knows better than I do what to do with it? Social engeneering I not interested in education for people i don’t know, health care for a broken system? A scam to support the elderly that you would be thrown in jail if you tried to implement out side of government (Ponzai Scheme)? Sign me up.
Think how much crime we could prevent if no one had guns or knives or fire or the police didn’t need warrents or everyone had to be indoors from sunset to daybreak or if we could MAKE people confess to crimes. Or if we could lock up Noe-nazis, skin-heads, th Klu Klux Klan or Black people or the Jews or the japanese or communists or anyone who doesn’t toe the line. Just think how safe we would be!
Give government the power they will fix it they promise! (just don’t blame them if it doesn’t work out).
oh yeah baby! It’s a good ole rant! (not AT you Axsdeny but I trust you already know that).
it’s driving me crazy. . . what is the letter/story/joke that ends with “why do you hate freedom?” i can. . . ALMOST remember!
Haha! Rant-tastic! To add some context, my original post was in response to the unwarranted wiretapping of US citizens that the president ordered via the NSA. There’s no justification at all if the FISA court wasn’t pulled into the mix. Hence the resignation of the one FISA judge in fury over the circumvention.
Incidentally, FISA covers peace time(to my understanding). The big question is “where does the AUMF place us?” In war time these wiretaps are authorized for a limited duration. Either way I’m not jazzed about big brother, necessary or not, for previously stated reasons.
The 4th amendment covers peace time as well as war time. When you spy on US citizens, you need to get a warrant. Whether it be through FISA or through the traditional legal process is irrelevant. As for the AUMF, I shudder to think that the military can trump the legal process for our citizens. That’s how police states and totalitarianism start. I’m all for stopping terrorism, but following the rules that are set up is a better way to do it. You can spy on foreigners talking amongst themselves all you want, but if a legitimate US citizen is involved, spy on the, then get a FISA warrant. According to FISA you can do it retroactively. There’s no reason not to do so to remain within the law. Claiming the AUMF trumps the 4th amendment might hold some ground if Congress hadn’t specifically said that’s what FISA was meant to prohibit.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *