Slashdot Mirror
Some Rights May Have To Be 'Eroded' For Safety
Turn-X Alphonse writes "The BBC is reporting on a speech given by the head of MI5 in the UK. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller claims in the future some civil rights may have to 'erode', in order to keep everyone in the country safe from terrorism." From the article: "MI5 has recently let it be known that it is in favour of making telephone intercept evidence admissible in court. Previously the intelligence and security services had expressed concern such that evidence might reveal operational details. Meanwhile, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has been calling for EU states to keep mobile phone and e-mail records for longer, to help fight terrorism and crime."
people who constantly bitch about politicians but never vote
Voting is accepting the nanny state. Forcing 49% of people who disagree with you to accept your views as law is anti-civil liberty.
If we had more personal responsbility in this world governments wouldn't be able to get away with attitudes like this.
Right. This is why financial liberty is far more important than civil liberty. Cut off authorian access to your pocketbook and they'll be unable to affect your civil rights.
Except when they come and take your pocketbook with guns. Like these guys.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
For example, most countries consider allowing executions, particularly of minors, to be a crime against basic human rights.
When you put Bush in court for war crimes I'll take your God-given rights to every human born, US citizen or not seriously.
It may be very hard to stop someone who wants to blow up a train and is convinced it is the will of their God to do so. Security should be increased and anything in the power of public utilities like train stations and airports should be done to prevent terrorism.
Absolutely, and it does nothing about the real killer, governmental incompetance. To fix that we need MORE civil rights. And after that's done, the terrorism problem should dry up on its own.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The BBC has a Have Your Say section where people can talk about news stories. This is a comment on this one:
"Western countries' obsession with individual rights has often been seen as a strength, but in the modern world it has become a weakness. When these rights were developed over the preceding centuries it was never envisaged that they would be exploited to shield those who wish to annihilate those very rights and the society that gave them birth. We should wake up and curtail some of the more excessive freedoms, in order to preserve those that are more fundamental."
What a complete idiot.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
A couple of destroyed buildings serves as a very visible symbol.
If terrorists had killed 4000 random people with a selective virus, sure it would still be nasty but there wouldn't be any video to watch or a great big hole in the ground afterwards.
Gun deaths are the same thing: not visible, so ignored.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Do you really think the terrorists are trying to erode our freedoms?
First of all, it's usually the actions of the government, not the people, that they are trying to influence. Sure they may think Americans are debauched and stupid, but so does everyone else. That's not the reason you fly planes into buildings.
The point of inspiring terror in the average person is to get them to exercise their influence to get their government to do what the terrorists want. It's not at all playing into their hands to make the average citizen scared of their government and suspicious of their neighbor. Indeed, it's the terrorists that are playing into the hands of the fascists.
It is wonderful how US citizens love the "Freedom" logo which is sewn invisibly onto every flag. They love it and their country - which is a cool thing. I wish Britons were more patriotic. But the funny thing is - as a European I feel that some freedoms seem noticably absent in the US. Real rights - which I enjoy. For example... The freedom to buy alcohol - as an adult. Denied until the age of 21. Never been "carded" in England. The freedom to have sexual intercourse. (Both heterosexual and homosexual) - the age of consent is 16 in the UK. The freedom to consume soft drugs. The freedom to decline mass immunization programs. And not to mention the fact that most European states no longer execute criminals (especially retartded or child criminals) - It is not just the government - walk into Tesco- the UKs largest retailler and take some photograps - no problem Walk into Walmart with a camera and you will be escorted off the premises. I guess freedom comes in different flavours. Carni
One question is what Franklin meant by "essential liberty". Is the freedom to walk down the streets of London without being videotaped an essential liberty?* What about the freedom to use the phone unmonitored?
Another question is why Franklin would believe that the willingness to give up some of one's own essential liberty merits a loss of safety. Did he really mean that people who would feel safer with a constant overbearing police presence should instead be thrown to the wolves (rather, to the criminal elements they want the police to protect them from)? Isn't safety itself an essential liberty?
My point is that just because Franklin said something doesn't make it the gospel truth. The moment I saw the original post on the Slashdot front page, I knew somebody would whip out the old Franklin quote. This time around, though, I hope people really think about the implications rather than just use it as a bludgeoning instrument for proving their point.
(*Never mind that Brits might not be apt to take advice from an icon of the American Revolution.)
That said (and getting a bit more on-topic), I think a real issue here is that liberty is being sacrificed to gain no appreciable increase in safety. The mere illusion of safety is not enough to justify some of the intrusions that governments like the UK and US are foisting on their citizens.
In terms of a threat to the average citizen of any particular state, the threat posed by terrorism is right down in the noise level.
I think this hits the nail on the head. The point of terrorism is to terrorize and spread fear. The thought of getting caught up in a terrorist attack seems to scare people much more than it should given that the odds of getting killed in a terrorist attack are so low. So in order to "protect" its citizenry what does the government do? They pass laws and take steps that give comfort to the people to soothe their irrational fear even though these steps are of little help in actually preventing terrorism.
For example, after the recent bombings in London, police activity in the New York area was stepped up. I saw policemen on the trains and an increased national guard presence in Grand Central. Will these people really be able to prevent a well though out terrorist attack...no way. However, when people see this they tend to feel better.
It's the same with the laws getting passed to fight terrorism. Anyone who is capable of pulling off a massive attack is not going to be stopped by these laws, they will just work around them.
It seems that since terrorism plays on people's emotions so much, the steps the government takes seems to try to calm these fears rather than make thing inherently safer. So now we are left with reduced liberties that are prone to abuse just to calm an irrational fear in the average citizen.
Freedom = Security
Freedom to bear arms secures my property.
Freedom from unwarranted incursion into my property secures it.
Freedom from entangling ourselves into the business of other countries secures us from the threat of terrorism.
Freedom from taxation secures my financial future.
While I agree with you that Poverty contributed tremendously to the severity of the disaster, I feel the need to express (in a reply, rather than with the mod points I've got right now) a couple thoughts on poverty.
First: People couldn't leave because they didn't have cars? If as a last resort people had to walk to safety, most people had ample warning to exercise that mode of transportation!
Society had better be careful that the measures we take to address the problem of poverty don't continue to further debilitate the poverty stricken by increasing their reliance and dependence on The State to run their lives for them. As an earlier poster asserted: much of the problems we face as a society boil down to a lack of personal responsibility. Many people who were fully capable of taking care (or at least better care) of themselves and those around them opted instead to thrust the full weight of responsibility for their survival, upon the government! And then complain bitterly (or, sadly -- die) when the state fails to handle the enormity of the burden placed on it.
This is getting off track, so I'll finish by stating that WE need to be careful of surrendering our liberties, freedoms, and responsibilities to a state that may or may not (as we've seen time and again) be qualified to take on those responsibilities.
I'll agree with you, with reservations.
What the heck is a civil right?
Every important to me is my property: my body and my material possessions on my land. I have no need for civil rights within this sphere.
Let's go for a walk outside my property. If I come onto your property, I live by YOUR civil rules. You can tell me, in your sphere, to shut up, disarm, or leave. You can use force.
Let's both walk on public land. What civil rights are needed here? None. Before I go on public land or another's private land, I want guarantees that my property is safe. Our Constitution guarantees Government can't harm my property.
That's all that is needed. Ultimate, complete property rights.
When do civil rights come into play?
The price of eternal vigilance is half an hour of your time, a newspaper, and pen and paper. If you are British, please, please, write to your local MP. Do it now. Then write to MI5, and 10 Downing Street.
Police: Local volunteer police force I'll allow. No county, state, or FBI. Most property crimes would see reduction by allowing citizens the choice to arm themselves and letting homeowners hire security companies for their subdivisions. Today's cops are ticket writers and chalk line drawers.
firefighters: Insurance company provided or volunteer.
road construction: You're kidding me. Private roads funded by businesses on those roads or by homeowners who use the roads in their area. My subdivision's roads are privately funded and gorgeous.
public education: It's a horror. Private education only. Kids in America are dumber today than ever. Education is not a right. Today's public education is the epitome of nannydom.
Sewage/water treatment has provably been better by private companies. John Stossel did a 20/20 report ('Stossel Goes To Washington') about it.
My waste management is already 100% private.
None of these items are government-only.
It's simple, theres nothing you can do. 95% of the population could decide to be against the government and against the top 1% and it does not change the fact that the top 1% controls all factions of the government. Do you know what this means? This means they control the troops, the law enforcement, the judges, both political parties, the school system, and you are either with them or against them.
Do you want to be a terrorist? A peasant? or a boss? I don't think you want to be a terrorist because they'd have no problem putting anyone who they declare a terrorist into a camp and torturing them for years.
The Libertarian party believes that the only justified function of government is the protection of the lives, rights and property of its citizens. Thus, your strategy might not work too well as the local police would come and remove you, the local judiciary would try and convict you of trespass and/or assault and/or theft, and the punishment would probably be a bit unpleasant. Of course, the home's owner might have saved the government a lot of trouble by dispatching you him/herself.
This is not to say that Libertarians don't support privatization of some law enforcement (i.e., I may contract my law enforcement needs to a private firm if I want a higher quality service - such as a full-time body guard).
This is of course the Libertarian view -- in my experience it's hard to determine what the libertarian view is as they range from anarchists to those who don't seem all that unlike some of the creeps we routinely elect under the Republican or Democrat banner.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
And I couldn't agree more.
Say what you will about the whole "judicial activist" canard, and originalism, and all that garbage. I hear a lot of fellow liberals give Scalia a hard time, but I read his dissents, and I can only conclude that this guy's on our side. We need more Scalias. (Roberts is no Scalia - unfortunately. Neither is Thomas.)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
For three decades or so, Britons stood in the shadow of IRA terrorist attacks. Did they let the IRA win by surrendering their way of life ? No. They went on with their lives as they always had, and in time it became clear, even to the IRA, that their attacks were not helping them achieve their goals.
Now the terrorists have changed. Does Britain's new generation of leaders stand up to them and refuse to sacrafice freedoms, as in the past ? No, they make compromises - big compromises - which will encourage this generation of terrorists and future ones when they realise that their attacks are making a difference.
Much as it saddens me to write this, perhaps Margaret Thatcher would have done a better job of standing up to today's breed of terrorists. In spite of all her other faults, her one strength was that she wouldn't compromise.
(Geez, I can't believe I just said something good about Maggie Thatcher).
And the first thing to say in protest is, "My rights are granted by God or by birth." I don't think the GP was implying that all of our rights are eternally safe. He was saying that they are eternally defensible. Especially when the central law of the land, the Constitution, says that his rights are inherent.
Perhaps the Constitution and its Bill of Rights were meant to allow regular people with little knowledge of the law to trump the semantic knowledge of the lawyers when their rights were trampled. I'm not saying that this is a panacea, but knowing your "God-given" rights is a huge step forward from not knowing...or from having them be "permitted rights" instead of inherent ones.
Actually, the constitution is a agreement between the power brokers of the late 1700 hundreds to legitimize a government. It defines a legalist document that outlines basic ideals and laws that would govern the country. It was not meant for normal people. Normal people at that tiem still were mostly not literate. It's a fairly liberal and enlightened document for its time. Many of the initial signers and the drafters where stone masons and thus it support many of the masionic ideals of equality, fraternity, and freedom.
It does not allow people without knowledge of the interpretation to do anything, it is itself a legal docuemnt and most people have only vague clues to what it means. Most people interpret it wrong. For instance the first amendment outlines that the state cannot interfere with someones religion, someones political/religious speech or the right of indiviuals to gather. Most americans take it as a blank check to say what ever they want, when ever they want to.
As for inherent rights history shows that the rights you have are only the ones you can defend. No rights are inherent, a change in leadership can legislate out all yoru rights. The presumption that they are inherent leads many to assume that this can't happen, and leads them all to fight less for their rights. See Rome and germany.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
My attitude? What is my attitude, then, since you seem to know so much about it?
If I misunderstood I'm sorry but I got the impression you didn't care who the US supported as long as it suited it's purpose without regards to the consequences.
What I really object to is the "we helped make them, so we can't unmake them" argument that your earlier post suggested.
Now I think it's you who have the misunderstanding, I don't onject to "unmaking them", I do prefer to try to being active and avoiding making or taking any action that has to be unmade later.
I will say that I was not in favor of invading Iraq. I even wrote Bush (for whom I didn't vote, BTW, at least the first time)
I was in support of military action but only with UN approval. I'm not saying the US should only take action with UN approval, for instance if the US were attacked. But neither SH nor Iraq attacked. As far as him supporting bin Laden, he knew what fate he faced if bin Laden had his way. bin Laden even told Iraqis to rise up and overthrow SH, SH being secular was intolerable to him. As for myself I supported the first Gulf War but believe we stopped too soon, instead of removing Iraqi troops from Kuwait the US should of supported those in Iraq that desired democracy. As president, Bush Sr encouraged those against SH to rise up but when they did there wasn't any support and they were massacred.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sorry for the late post, I can generally only read from my PDA/GPRS and I couldn't reconnect.
You're generally right because we don't need arbitrators as much, but I do forsee a better arbitration based on e-bay and slashdot's karma.
First, arbitration companies and contract insurance can guarantee payment. If either or both parties have "bad karma" or "bad feedback" on previous contracts, the insurance will be higher, naturally. If they both have GOOD karma or good feedback, then the insurance will be lower. I'm sure numerous contract insurers will pop up, and I'm sure that good arbitration companies will also offer these policies at low rates.
Secondly, today's arbitration system is manipulated completely by those in law. The system is so convoluted that nothing gets resolved in a timely fashion or in a cheap manner. Even bounced checks are hard to enforce. In a free market, I would believe that people would have much less ability to repeatedly screw over others.
In the long run, I don't see any hope for our current monopoly on justice. You can't win unless you're wealthy. In a free market, even the poorest person will still be able to purchase contract insurance in the event that the other party screws them over, or in the event that they can't finish the contract.