read the article and judge for yourself


PDA






alan
August 2, 2005, 11:52 PM
Posters Note:

Some very interesting points to be found in the article. While "feelings of safety" are certainly comforting, perhaps even desirable, the actuality of safety is even more desirable, and it is this last that is not obtained from the foolishness of random searches of bags carried by subway riders.

It also strikes me that the feelings of safety, above mentioned, come at entirely to high a cost. Read the article and judge for yourself.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/072905.shtml

If you enjoyed reading about "read the article and judge for yourself" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RevDisk
August 3, 2005, 12:37 AM
Yea, I sometimes consult for a thinktank that does counterterrorism work. Amoung other things, they deal with "sociology of terrorism". This involves the study of how folks react to terrorism in addition to studying the folks that commit terrorism. I'm mostly just a technical guy. This weapon does this, this strain does that. Much more boring than it sounds, involving very long and boring papers that no one really cares about.

It's very hard on me. Because I wanna smack some sense in folks and I'm not allowed to do so.


Feel-good illusions of safety. That's pretty much what 95% of CT policies implemented do. Give ya a false sense of security that is entirely divorsed from reality. Telling this to folks implementing said policy or advising policy makers does not make me a very popular person.

It shocked me at first that people will honestly give up every freedom they possess for an ounce of illusionary safety. When I bring this up, they honestly believe the govt will never use AT/CT laws against US citizens.

BWAHAHAHA!

Tell that to Padilla and Gods know who else.

c_yeager
August 3, 2005, 04:17 AM
While i am not a fan of the measures that are being taken to prevent terrorism and while i agree that the measures are innefective at best, i do dissagree with the point of the article. Terrorism is about scaring people, and keeping them scared. Any measure that makes people "feel better" is a counter to that, albeit a small one. So, in that way, even inneffective counters to actual terrorist do effectively counter the lasting anxiety caused by an incident of terrorism.

For example, think about the people who went up and volunteered to be searched. For whatever reason, being searched made them feel safer. Every person that was made to feel safer by having their bag searched is one person for whome the effects of the bombings in London were lessened.

Now, with that said. Are the people made to feel safer by these methods probably outrageously stupid? yeah, probably. Is making stupid people feel safe worth sacrificing our rights and freedom? certainly not. Just because "inefective" means might actually work doesnt mean that they should be carried out.

I guess that the long and short of it is that a "feel good" measure is OK, so long as it doesnt cause anyone harm or cost more than its worth. By this measure the subway searches DO NOT qualify, but things like the terror color codes probably do.

Old Fuff
August 3, 2005, 08:37 AM
The "feel-good" stuff is largely aimed at the sheeple who live in major urban areas. Most of them have been brought up from childhood (and the public school systems) to believe that ONLY the government (police and whatever) can protect them. The very idea that people can and should be able to protect themselves is completely foreign to their thought processes. It doesn't help when statutes in these cities or states generally prohibit or sharply restrict the owernship and/or use of personal weapons.

In this kind of environment it is quite understandable why such people are more then willing to give up personal freedoms in exchange for supposed security. They don't know any other way to live.

ravinraven
August 3, 2005, 08:57 AM
"For example, think about the people who went up and volunteered to be searched. For whatever reason, being searched made them feel safer. Every person that was made to feel safer by having their bag searched is one person for whome the effects of the bombings in London were lessened."

Here's what terrifies the s*** out of me: These people vote.

rr

Control Group
August 3, 2005, 09:13 AM
Here's what terrifies the s*** out of me: These people vote.
And that's why we shouldn't have direct election of Senators, or anything like as much power vested in the fed.gov as we do.

Two centuries later, the insight of the founders still proves to be as accurate as ever.

ravinraven
August 3, 2005, 03:40 PM
"And that's why we shouldn't have direct election of Senators, or anything like as much power vested in the fed.gov as we do.

"Two centuries later, the insight of the founders still proves to be as accurate as ever."


Amen

Zundfolge
August 3, 2005, 05:06 PM
Anti-terrorism laws
gun laws
the FDA
the ESRB
Seatbelt laws
watering restrictions in the summer
etc etc ad nauseum


the problem with America (with humanity in general) is that too many people are sheep. Too many people are willing to give up their freedom just for the illusion of security ... worse too many people are willing to give up other people's freedom to feed this same illusion.


sad.

alan
August 3, 2005, 07:25 PM
ravinraven:

Do you really believe that the people you spoke of actually vote??

RevDisk:

You made reference to what you described as "CT policies". Also, you mentioned AT/CT laws. I assume that AT means Anti Terrorism or Terrorist. Unless CT means Counter Terrorism or Terrorist, you have lost me. Please clarify if you would. Thanks.

c_yeager wrote:

"Now, with that said. Are the people made to feel safer by these methods probably outrageously stupid? yeah, probably. Is making stupid people feel safe worth sacrificing our rights and freedom? certainly not. Just because "inefective" means might actually work doesnt mean that they should be carried out."

There was this film dealing with the recreation of long gone creatures, strange to note, the name of the film taken from a Crichton novel escapes me at the moment. In any event, people involved were all for it, except for one individual who offered the following. Just because we can do something is not reason to actually do it. Strikes me that that admonition applies to this searching of things carried by subway riders, and by the way, no way in hell is it going to stop with those who ride the subway, if it ever takes hold. The political whores who supposedly "represent us", and what pass for the forces of good, will obviously NOT be able to resist the temptation, and another uncomfortable large bite will have been taken out of individual freedom.

Think about Ben Franklin's 1759 observation regarding essential liberties, temporary security and, and those who would exchange one for the other, and where, or with what the exchangers end up.

RevDisk
August 3, 2005, 08:01 PM
You made reference to what you described as "CT policies". Also, you mentioned AT/CT laws. I assume that AT means Anti Terrorism or Terrorist. Unless CT means Counter Terrorism or Terrorist, you have lost me. Please clarify if you would. Thanks.

Some folks see antiterrorism as different than counterterrorism. I really don't, but hey if folks wanna see a difference, fine by me.

They see CT as strategy intended to counteract or suppress terrorism that's on-going. AT being preventing terrorism in general.

dpesec
August 3, 2005, 08:32 PM
I'm not so much concerned that these people vote, but they breed. This means that at some point there will be more of them. That's when things will get dicey.

Standing Wolf
August 3, 2005, 11:44 PM
Terrorism is about scaring people, and keeping them scared. Any measure that makes people "feel better" is a counter to that, albeit a small one.

Sorry, but I believe you've got that backward. Terrorism is about frightening people into submission. I'd say the Islamic terrorist savages are doing quite a successful job of persuading people to submit to the wholesale sacrifice of the nation's civil rights.

We're in the middle of a world war, and don't even have a clue!

R.H. Lee
August 4, 2005, 12:13 AM
the problem with America (with humanity in general) is that too many people are sheep. Too many people are willing to give up their freedom just for the illusion of security ... worse too many people are willing to give up other people's freedom to feed this same illusion.
+1

Thanks for saying that.

RevDisk
August 4, 2005, 01:56 AM
Sorry, but I believe you've got that backward. Terrorism is about frightening people into submission. I'd say the Islamic terrorist savages are doing quite a successful job of persuading people to submit to the wholesale sacrifice of the nation's civil rights.

We're in the middle of a world war, and don't even have a clue!

Terrorism is simply causing terror. Yes, it usually intends to frighten the sheeple into submission. Funny thing is, I see folks giving up what no "Islamic terrorist savage" could take by force, their freedoms.

I don't fly commercial anymore. Why? I ain't worried about crashing into a building. I'm worried about a TSA agent feeling me up for kicks, while looting my possessions. I used to love flying too.

While, yes, it is a global war, I wouldn't count it as a world war. Gives too much credibility to folks that don't deserve it. Overestimating one's enemies can be nearly as dangerous as underestimating them. Compared to the Commies, that killed tens of millions and possessed thousands of nuclear weapons... These jokers ain't nothing.

ravinraven
August 4, 2005, 06:27 AM
"Do you really believe that the people you spoke of actually vote??"

Yes. These folks are the very targets of voter registration drives. True, maybe, that most of them do not vote, but a few will vote as they are told to when they are registered mostly against their will or awareness.

And they breed. Imagine the trouble we'd be in today if the Liberals hadn't wiped out 50 million of their own supporters by abortion over the last 40 years.

As far as the terrorists having no nukes--well maybe one or two--they are keeping the pressure on. They keep people scared and the scared ones demand that the gov't take their liberty and take yours while they are at it. Either we will eventually look so much like what the Taliban had going in Afghanistan that the Islamiofacists will stop bothering us, or we will dissolve into a gaggle of squabbling "states" and territories--again--a victory for steady pressure. Terrorism.

We are at war and no one knows it but a few on the front. We don't seem to realize that wars do not have to have huge airraids and tank columns to be a war. Too much concentration on the WWI and WWII actions. Virtually nobody can mount that kind of action against us, hence car bombs.
And how long will it be before we have random car searches? After all, car bombs are killing more that backpack bombs.

rr

Old Fuff
August 4, 2005, 09:14 AM
>> "Do you really believe that the people you spoke of actually vote??" <<

Don't kid yourself. If these people (the sheeple) really didn't vote we wouldn't have so-called "blue" states, and the House and Senate in Washington wouldn't be almost equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. Without doubt the Democrats control most of the sheeple votes coming from the urban areas.

alan
August 5, 2005, 02:41 PM
Regarding the procreational efforts of the Hand Wringers, those who simply cannot surrender essential liberties fast enough, is it to much to hope that their above mentioned efforts will, in large part, fail?

If you enjoyed reading about "read the article and judge for yourself" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!