(This is just today's...if I went back I could find more examples.)
I find it frustrating that when I talk to people about this, the typical answer is, "Why do you care if you don't have anything to hide?"
It seems people really are choosing safety over liberty.
I'm sure that in the grand scheme of things, there is some threshold that, once crossed, would spur people into action. Personally, I'm already disturbed by the trend because I'd rather stop things now than wait until we get to the level of the Revolutionary War. I'm anti-bloodshed, when possible. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, in the case of the Bush administration, the safety versus liberty tradeoff doesen't really come into play. I see little reason to believe and plenty to doubt that their "Homeland Security" procedures were any better considered or tied to reality than the war in Iraq.
There's certainly a lot to be said for the principles of oversight and transparency and respect for the law and Constitution, but I also think that letting them do what they want without these safeguards in place actually makes us less safe, because they are a bunch of foul-ups.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine: How do you feel about surrendering Property in order to build the social Safety net? (Property is one of Locke's original Inalienable Rights.)
What is your opinion on potentially surrendering all of your medical records to the federal gov't in a National Health Care plan?
People choose safety over liberty all the time. They just pick and choose which liberties they're willing to give up in the name of safety.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is your opinion on potentially surrendering all of your medical records to the federal gov't in a National Health Care plan?
I'm not aware that anyone in the U.S. is suggesting this as part of a health care plan. Which do you see that have this, Pix?
quote:People choose safety over liberty all the time. They just pick and choose which liberties they're willing to give up in the name of safety.
Of course they do. That's the foundation of the social contract. I give up the liberty to kill other people so that I get the safety from being killed, etc. Without giving up some liberties to establish safety, liberty as a whole is largely impossible.
The problem sets in when people are exchanging (as Ben Franklin said) necessary liberties for temporary security*. In this case, the short term measures to obatin safety threaten the long term safety and liberty that the rights people give up are there to protect.
---
edited for clarity: * or, as I believe is the case here, a group, especially one in the government, is forcing a trade of the people's liberty and safety to secure their own liberty and safety.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
How much liberty are you willing to give up for the ILLUSION OF SECURITY.
It is not even a question of 'safety', it is a question of a personal sense of security.
Freedom is not safe, nor should it be.
In light of the recent movie 'Into the Wild', let us ask if McCandles, the lead character in the movie, was free. He most certainly was free, but was he safe or secure? No, of course not, he live a self-determined but very precarious existence.
Now let's ask if prisoners in a state or federal prison are free? They have food, shelter, clothing, and free medical care. They are guarded 24 hours a day. So, as so many ill-informed citizens desire, those prisoners have the illusion of safety and security.
But it is just that, an illusion. They are neither safe nor secure, and in the process have gambled away all their liberty and freedom.
Now ask yourself with world appeals to your more, freedom or prison. Both are precarious, but I will personally take the self-determine insecurity of freedom and liberty over the uncontrolled undetermined insecurity of prison.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is your opinion on potentially surrendering all of your medical records to the federal gov't in a National Health Care plan? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not aware that anyone in the U.S. is suggesting this as part of a health care plan. Which do you see that have this, Pix?
Obama's plan is full of Healthcare IT 'improvements' and 'watchdog groups' without being very specific about what that exactly that means. For example from Obama's website:
quote: This information is developed by reviewing existing literature, analyzing electronic health care data, and conducting simple, real world studies of new technologies.
posted
Of course it is. IT improvements in Healthcare is a no brainer. There's huge cost and safety benefits there.
But most implementations make medical records more, rather than less, secure. No one, that I'm aware of, is suggesting giving the government access to everyone's medical records.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't know that that is true. Wasn't that almost the entirety of the Bush administration's post-invasion Iraq plans?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example... How do you feel about turning over the sources of all of your income to the government? I mean, you got nothing to hide, right?
Squick: If the government is going to get the bill they're going to know what they're paying for. They're not just going to get an invoice for a million dollars and cut a check. They'll know it was for testing and surgery on your crohn's disease. Thus giving a new meaning to having the government up your ***.
The exception to this is Hillary's plan which is a giant subsidy for insurance corporations.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I think that's a misunderstanding of many of the health care proposals I've seen, it is nonetheless quite a bit different from surrendering all your medical records to the government.
---
I'm not a huge fan of paying income tax. I also don't particularly like having to obey speed limits or jumping through hoops for zoning permits. I sure do appreciate that other people have to do these things though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We certainly don't want to live in an anarchy. I do have a certain respect for the libertarian POV and even agree with them on a lot of points because I'm a minimalist when it comes to government (something neither major political party comes close to). But I also accept that in polite society, other people (in the form of government enforcing the rules they create) will have a certain say over what I can and cannot do. Some of these, such as not killing other people, are obvious. Others are more gray.
Which I guess is the point of the question. Because certainly I see taking away our 4th amendment rights as going too far but others disagree. But I'm sure there are people far more libertarian than I am (this isn't too hard...I just lean that way) who would think I'm willing to give up too many freedoms.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
