Where do we draw the line between Liberty and Security?

The quest for security should not be a license to practise anyone's prejudices. THAT could be counted as a victory for our "enemies".

just read my signature line.

i think that puts it pretty clearly.

and it was written close to 250 years ago.

An Arab/Muslim getting on a plane is not suspected of any crime yet.

Thats true with me and you but not for some. There are folks more gifted than me that know how to determine religous affiliation by sight. aWehad one out hee who made a boo boo he shot and killedthe father of 3 kids. Boo boo was the guy was a Sikh, but hey it was close enough.At hte trial he blubbered and made excuses that stunk of nuremburg

Actually, The Line Was Drawn...

... when the Constitution was ratified.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

Liberty|_________________________________________________Security

_____^ Right there.

They got the title of the show wrong.

It is, "The Price of Security."

It should be, "The Price of Liberty."

Isn't it grand how even the title of a show is a powerful editorial statement?

Exactly the point I've made before. When cops look for a young black male suspect or whatever, it's usually because a crime has been committed and they have a rough description of the suspect.

An Arab/Muslim getting on a plane is not suspected of any crime yet.

Click to expand...

True indeed. Although in many minds he's tried and convicted before he even buys his ticket.

Does racial profiling work? You betcha. Is it unconstitutional? Yep. Can we reconcile these two facts? Nope.

Therefore, it shouldn't be done. Demeanor, appearance and behavior, however, are great indicators of character types, and they are perfectly constitutional to observe in people about to board a plane. So an Arab with a ticking briefcase would be someone to ask a few questions.

How about an 80-year-old grandmother with a ticking briefcase? Sure, ask her questions too.

But don't be surprised when planes blow up. No matter what, you can NEVER completely eliminate crime or terrorism. Never. Forget it. Risk-free doesn't exist here on Earth. Keep your liberty, accept the risk, and for crying out loud, live your life instead of trying to extend it at the cost of freedom!

(Note: the "you" I was speaking to above is "you" in general, not the poster I quoted.)

They got the title of the show wrong.

It is, "The Price of Security."

It should be, "The Price of Liberty."

Isn't it grand how even the title of a show is a powerful editorial statement?

Click to expand...

Holy cow! I didn't even notice that. Good catch. As if security is the desired condition, instead of liberty. The leftists infesting Big Media will stop at nothing to twist reality into an agenda-feeding bowl of dung to give its viewers (and readers).

Maybe the real problem is allowing a society to evolve where people don't understand liberty, lack self-control, and are innocent of the basic precepts of good citizenhood. Only in such a society can this question arise.

Click to expand...

Very profound. This is indeed the root cause of the question's existence--back in Ben Franklin's day, no one would have ever asked it.

Run with Scissors--but train first

But don't be surprised when planes blow up. No matter what, you can NEVER completely eliminate crime or terrorism. Never. Forget it. Risk-free doesn't exist here on Earth. Keep your liberty, accept the risk, and for crying out loud, live your life instead of trying to extend it at the cost of freedom!

Click to expand...

You make a good point about Risk. There's a mania in the land to root out all risk. Can't be done. Not without impoverishing the spirit while simultaneously destroying our liberties. The fear of risk is another component of the pernicious liberal mindset. We cling to "government" to eliminate risk and wind up stunting initiative and, ironically, causing chaos and cowardice where there was exploration and experimentation.

We have far more, in the end, to fear from governmental tyranny than random pockets of lawlessness. Roving bandits can be dealt with by armed free citizens. Rogue governments pose a much more difficult problem.

this is a silly thought, but...

I was thinking about how our legislature works the other day with my kids... and came to a thought (doesnt happen much!) What if I made a new rule EVERY day until my children where 18 yrs old? Is there anything left they would be able to do? Is this similar to what is currently happening with our society?

Giving up some rights is part of a collective society.

For example: "We" collectively decided to give up the right to roam around wherever we wanted so that people could own property, i.e. so that it could be private. But who's to say that I can't just walk wherever I want? Someone took that right away from me. We chose to recognize a person's claim to a particular piece of land rather than simply shooting one another. Granted, this evolved over many years.

So, which "rights" do we give up?