Slashdot Mirror
2006's Bill of Wrongs
Jamie continued the never ending flow of year-end recap stories, this one is the Bill of Wrongs which lists the 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of the year, according to Slate. Several of these aren't news to Slashdot readers, but it's still worth a read.
Is that a troll or do you actually have a reference to show that the ACLU was actively supporting such bans?
Would you be against a ban of mercury in food as a seasoning?
let me fix this:
Apparently the point of our civil liberties is to protect everyone on earth, including the alleged terrorists, huh?
Yes.
"Apparently the point of our civil liberties is to protect everyone on earth, including the terrorists, huh?"
Actually, yes, that is the point, and the fact that so many Americans don't understand this is precisely why they will eventually have no civil liberties at all. Because the moment you decide that it's "some men are created equal" rather than "all men are created equal," the only thing left is to decide who the privileged "some" will be... and history tells us that it will always end up being the richest and most powerful, who invariably get that way by being the most despotic.
Human rights for one requires the value of human rights for all. Otherwise, all rights are just granted by whatever dictator happens to be in charge at the moment.
"Now that is a liberal. Bitch at the Republicans accusing them of "trading liberty for security" but if it saves money, why not!?"
If the state is to be exptected to pay for a steady stream of oxygen tanks, heart stints and bypasses and the like, then the state is justified in reducing the costs to the taxpayers by reducing their frequency.
I would also be more than willing to accept a designation on your driver's license, similar to the markings for organ donors, that marks you as a (e. g.) smoker, thereby exempting you from both state-funded medical care or from the responsibility of any group healthcare programs you may be a part of, requiring you to pay for everything out-of-pocket as well as lowering your priority in gaining access to treatment for your self-inflicted ailments. But the hue and cry against such a measure from indignant smokers (et al) would keep it from ever being enacted.
I don't particularly mind people doing stupid things that kill them where they stand (unless the local morgue is particularly overtaxed), but in the case of activities that place an undue burden on public health resoures, resoures that must be shared between all citizens of the state, then the rest of the people have the right to take action, in their own self-interest, to prevent that burden. Whether they treat the demand side of the problem (by segregating off abusers into their own "separate but equal" healthcare system) or the supply side (by banning the materials in question) is up to them, but one way or the other, your right to smoke ends where it effects the livlihood of others.
That reminds me of this guy the featured on the Public Radio show "This American Life." He was convicted of a murder he did not commit, so during the penalty faze of his trial he did everything he could to get the death penalty. His logic, if he was wrongly convicted to life in prison, nobody would give a s**t and he would rot in jail forever. If he was wrongly sentenced to death, some liberal lawyer would take up his case and exonerate him. The amazing thing is the plan worked. He convinced the jury to fry him and he found a liberal lawyer to overturn his conviction.
San Francisco Photographers
In my country, the majority of people do not smoke. Smoking is known to cause many health problems, and we've long since debunked the myth that passive smoking is harmless. So is banning smoking in a public place -- something that directly prevents harm to the health of the majority, at the expense of some convenience for the minority -- really an infringement of freedom?
Hint #1: Will my non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend who will finally be able to go to a bar in the evening have her freedom restricted?
Hint #2: Will a family member who gave up smoking years ago and no longer has to suffer the smoky atmosphere he wanted to leave behind every time he goes out for a drink have his freedom restricted?
Hint #3: Will the many non-smokers who will now be able to take work in the hospitality trade without risking their own health to do it have their freedom restricted?
There are lots of rights and freedoms, and by default we should defend them all for everyone. But sometimes they come into conflict. Sometimes resolving that conflict is difficult, particularly when it involves an important principle (such as a right to privacy) clashing with a very practical need (such as the right to travel safely, even if it means your fellow passengers have to be searched/background checked/whatever).
But sometimes, the decision is very easy for most people. Should the freedom of movement of a tried and convicted murderer outweigh the right of his neighbours not to be killed, or should we throw him in prison until he's no longer a danger to others? I believe the decision in that case would be near unanimous anywhere.
There are no right answers on these ethical issues, no black and white, always shades of grey. But you're wrong that the argument can be used to ban anything, at least if you mean used effectively. Some things are worth spending money on, even though it means compelling everyone to contribute. If a strong majority really did not agree with this (rather than just whinging about paying taxes, while at the same time being happy to use facilities funded through taxation) then chances are that we would long since have reverted to a completely private, insurance-based, very multi-class society.
For an argument about cost-saving to be effective, there has to be a clear moral case that the consequences are justified. In the case of smokers, as long as they were genuinely aware of the consequences and capable of making a reasoned decision independently, I don't see that there's much moral argument for putting their interests ahead of others who are given no choice about the smoker's actions, yet who suffer in health and potentially financial terms as a consequence.
If you want a more difficult argument with smokers, try the case of an older person, who smoked in their youth before the dangers were fully understood, but who has long since given up and who now gets lung cancer. But for current smokers, it seems to me that banning them from doing so (at least when non-smokers are nearby) can be easily justified in health grounds, and the financial argument is compelling (given that the public money you aren't spending treating smokers can then be spent on helping others who may not have had any choice about their misfortune).
(Footnote: The financial argument here assumes, of course, that the net cost of smoking to the health service is positive. This may or may not be a valid assumption, given that smokers tend to die younger and therefore not need increasing amounts of more expensive treatment in their old age. I've seen good arguments, backed by real statistics, on both sides of this argument. I'm not going to get into it again here, since my point is that the financial argument cannot be used automatically to justify arbitrary bans as the parent claimed, and smoking merely serves as a convenient example for discussion.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.