Giving up your freedoms--the argument "for"

[coltrane679]

There is one, because I have a friend who makes it, as a "conservative". It runs something like this:

If terrorists are allowed to make increasingly bold strikes against our society, then not only the deaths of many innocents, but also the complete death of our (relatively) free and open society is assured. One "nuclear event", for example, and our people will turn, unhesitatingly, to a dictator/strongman. It will all be over. We must prevent things from reaching this late stage, or we are done for as a free people.

On the other hand, if we accept what are admittedly significant retrictions on on liberties now, and eventually "defeat" these terrorists, we might be able to roll back some of the infringments on liberty we have willingly accepted. A comaprison might be to WW2 (always risky, in my book): yes, that war led to enormous growth in the American secuirty state, but, plainly, many wartime restrictions on liberty were relaxed thereafter, including most of the grossest ones (such as the internment of American citizens of Japanese origin).

That's his "half a loaf is better than no loaf" argument in a nutshell.

My criticism is this:

You are never going to defeat "terrorists"--they shall always be with us, and there will always be more intrusive and technologically sophisticated means of general surveillance available and developed that will be "justifed" in the name of combating them. Agreeing to give up liberties is a loser's game in this case--it is NOT WW2. It can only end in a worldwide police state. There will never be any clear "VJ Day" where we can hope government will give up some of the extraordinary powers we throw at it now.

To avoid the ends you must avoid the beginnings.

Are we stalemated? And, more importantly, is liberty doomed however we proceed?

 

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me a lot of this restriction-on-liberty stuff is tied to the ancient saying about the paving job on the road to Hell. I don't doubt the good intentions of most of those who give us stuff like the Patriot Act and TSA's policies. Stoopid does not necessarily equal Evil.

As a society, we dont want, we aren't used to, a lifestyle common to those in "terrorist territory": Israel, Lebanon, the Balkans (and many others)...We don't really know how to deal with it.

Art

 

[Gordon Fink]

Why isn’t it obvious that restrictions on our liberty were what allowed the terrorists to succeed on September 11th and on so many other occasions?

~G. Fink

 

[the naked prophet]

If terrorists are allowed to make increasingly bold strikes against our society, then not only the deaths of many innocents, but also the complete death of our (relatively) free and open society is assured.

So to avoid the death of our relatively free society at the hands of terrorists... we should cap it in the head ourselves?

One "nuclear event", for example, and our people will turn, unhesitatingly, to a dictator/strongman.

So we'd better hand it over now and avoid all the trouble?


I think your friend needs to make some better arguments.

 

[Technosavant]

As freedoms are stripped away in order to save our culture/society/nation/et al, we need to ask if what is becomes is even worth saving. We can trumpet that we are fighting for freedom, but if our freedom is rendered non-existent, then what, exactly, are we trying to save?

It gets awfully close to the Vietnam-era quote of "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

So to avoid the death of our relatively free society at the hands of terrorists... we should cap it in the head ourselves?

Unfortunately a lot of otherwise sensible people believe just that.

 

[fourays2]

I always ask people like that, why if we are serious about security is our southern border wide open?

 

[Thefabulousfink]

The Roman Republic (pre-empire) use to do something like this. In times of war and other emergancies they would elect a dictator who would have total control over the government and military. This allowed him to do what was needed to fight the war. These dictatorships had a pre-set term limit of 6 months. This worked quite well for them because a committee is not the best way to fight a war.
Of course we all know that later the Romans would allow an Emperor to hold complete power.

I guess once a free people get used to giving up their power it becomes easier and easier. By the time of Julius Caeser, the people were either so disgruntled with the coruption in the Senate or just too apathetic to care.

Sound familiar?

 

[Henry Bowman]

One "nuclear event", for example, and our people will turn, unhesitatingly, to a dictator/strongman.

A HUGE assumption and leap.

Also freedom is not without risks and freedom isn't free. The second part doesn't mean that we pay for it by giving it up. And it doesn't mean that it's paid for in occasional bulk payments (wars) only. We pay the price of freedom (dangers to our security, lives and property) every day. The problem come when we as a society expect that daily payment to be somebody else's responsibility (like the government's) and not our own.

 

[Standing Wolf]

We had to burn the village to the ground to save it.

 

[Diomed]

My view of this has already been expressed.

We have to destroy the republic in order to save it!

 

[Linux&Gun Guy]

Wolf is correct

This sounds very much like the idea of salting your own earth to prevent the enemy from getting it.

But doing that implies you are retreating and dont need the land yourself.

 

[xd9fan]

my problem is when was the last time Govt repealed powers it took?....anybody?

 

[sacp81170a]

Why isn’t it obvious that restrictions on our liberty were what allowed the terrorists to succeed on September 11th and on so many other occasions?

Ding, ding ding! Give that man a cigar! Not only have we been prohibited from carrying so much as a pointy stick on an aircraft, at the time the conventional wisdom was that resisting a hijacking might get you hurt! Kinda like, give the criminal predator whatever he wants and he might leave you alone. If people were encouraged to have more cojones then 9-11 might have been prevented. But then, if people had more cojones, they wouldn't make nice little subjects, would they? :banghead:

 

[1911 guy]

My argument in a nutshell.

We need no further restrictions on our liberties. We need restrictions on our liberties lifted. We need to bring down the very hammer of Hell itself on the ones threatening us, with no mercy. They started it. Let's finish it.

However, the average person, American or otherwise, has no stomach for ending this swiftly and brutaly. We'll play nice and wind up with far more dead on both sides than doing it right.

And before some bleeding heart says I'm advocating genocide, no I'm not. I am, however, advocating a mass extermination of people who want to "convert" the world by force. Call it "fanaticide", I guess.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

And before some bleeding heart says I'm advocating genocide, no I'm not. I am, however, advocating a mass extermination of people who want to "convert" the world by force. Call it "fanaticide", I guess.

This is not all that different than the attitude much of the Islamic world holds towards Israel, and we're seeing how well that's working out.

BTW, the Muslems are not intent on "converting" the world. That trait is peculiar to fundamentalist Christians.

 

[1911 guy]

Please,

educate yourself.

They, the leaders of these fundamentalists, have issued fatwas calling for the conversion or death of non-muslims. Christianity, as well as a lot of muslims, feel that sharing ones faith is good, forcing it is not.

Attempting to eliminate someone for the color of their skin, country of origin, or any other non-aggressive trait, is wrong. However, it is not wrong to deal with a threat from someone or a group that espouses the hatred of anyone not like them (muslim).

The hatred many muslims feel for jews falls into the first category, hating them for being jews, not for any aggressive traits.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

When was the last time you talked to a Muslim missionary?

I don't mean to imply that you are racist, and you are correct about the Islamic attitude toward the Jewish state being motivated by different factors than what you are suggesting. My point was that in the end the solutions are similar--"kill them all and let _______ (fill in the blank: Yahweh, Allah, the Buddha, etc.) sort it out."

I exaggerate here, but my point is that I don't see your suggestion as any more viable than eliminating the Jewish state. I think it is more of an emotional response than a logical response.

 

[1911 guy]

Muslim missionaries and emotions.

Yes, my response is an emotional one, but backed up by the facts concerning who we are dealing with. You cannot reason with nor make concessions to a person or organization who sets out to die in furtherance of their ideology. A soldier (or sailor, I'm former Navy) accepts death as possible outcome to some activities, but it's not the goal. For the extremists within Islam, death is the goal. How do you deal with that? Give them what they want, just a bit sooner than they want it.

As far as muslim missionaries, here's the catch. A muslim will talk to you about his faith just like anybody else of any other faith. We're assuming a non-radical type here, just Joe Muslim. You probably work with people of diferent faiths, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Baptist, etc. Some will talk loud and long, some say little or nothing. Why should Joe Muslim be any different?

Now we get into the radical types. They feel that the "right" way is evident for all to see, we as infidels are willfully blind to it and are therefore to be forcibly converted or killed "for our own good". Better dead than outside Islam, they say. This is also the rational behind the so-called "honor killings" that happen occassionally. Someone leaves the faith of Islam and is killed, usually by family members who are sure of the "heresy" committed. There was a killing a while back in my area, the woman's name was Methal Dayem. I believe it was her brother and cousin that killed her. She was keeping company with a non-muslim man.

 

[Werewolf]

James Madison understood...

 

[ksnecktieman]

I agree with lobotomyboy, insofar as he goes, that muslims are not out to convert the world. That is too bad...

What they DO want, is to execute infidels. (In case you are unaware, that is anyone that is not muslim.)

When someone approaches with intent to kill, it is time to respond. I think we all agree there. When someone declares an intent to kill, and means it, I feel it is also time to respond.

 

[Ieyasu]

BTW, the Muslems are not intent on "converting" the world. That trait is peculiar to fundamentalist Christians.

They want to convert any country they happen to be living in. A distinction without a difference these days (due to many country's lax [negligent] immigration policies).

 

[karaya]

BTW, the Muslems are not intent on "converting" the world.

True.

They want to rule the world.

In Muslim-ruled countries non-Mulims (infidels or Kufar) can believe in any religion they want as long as they submit to Islamic law and accept their status as Dhimmis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

The pictures above were made at an hate demonstration after the publishing of the infamous Mohammed cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
After such demonstrations and several death threats no European newspaper - as far as I know - dared to publish that cartoons again.

Methinks our freedoms - freedom of speech in this instance - are not only endangered by evil governments.

 

[Finch]

Why isn’t it obvious that restrictions on our liberty were what allowed the terrorists to succeed on September 11th and on so many other occasions?

Ding, ding ding! Give that man a cigar! Not only have we been prohibited from carrying so much as a pointy stick on an aircraft, at the time the conventional wisdom was that resisting a hijacking might get you hurt! Kinda like, give the criminal predator whatever he wants and he might leave you alone. If people were encouraged to have more cojones then 9-11 might have been prevented. But then, if people had more cojones, they wouldn't make nice little subjects, would they?

Ding, ding, DANG! Ummm, sorry to burst your superiority bubble, but nobody put a restriction on "cojones." Last time I checked, the TSA is not stopping you from taking your "cojones" on board with you. Unfourtanatly, I think a majority of Americans have just lost their cojones all together. Much thanks to the ACLU, UN, VPC, MMM, and many other obscure yet sissyfying acryonyms for that. Any American has the ability to stop injustices from occuring, and if you think that you need a gun in your hand to make that happen, well then I feel sorry for you.

I find it extremly sad that out of four planes, only one of them tried to take action. So with a really rough estimate, only 25% of Americans are willing to fight against homicidal attackers armed with three inch blades (assuming my 4 beers and counting math is correct). And as for that excuse that they didn't know it was a suicide mission -- who cares. Someone breaks into my home, their reason for doing so does not matter, they will still meet the business end of my boot - or shotgun.

I really wish I grew up in a diffrent generation (I'm 22). Mine is so PC and "we can solve every problem without violence" that it makes me sick. Sure, I would love to be able to solve every problem without violence, but it's just not possible. Some people understand bullets better than words. We should'nt have a problem explaining that to them.

 

[sacp81170a]

Ding, ding, DANG! Ummm, sorry to burst your superiority bubble, but nobody put a restriction on "cojones." Last time I checked, the TSA is not stopping you from taking your "cojones" on board with you. Unfourtanatly, I think a majority of Americans have just lost their cojones all together. Much thanks to the ACLU, UN, VPC, MMM, and many other obscure yet sissyfying acryonyms for that. Any American has the ability to stop injustices from occuring, and if you think that you need a gun in your hand to make that happen, well then I feel sorry for you.

Uh, you seem to reiterating my point. The folks on those planes outnumbered the T's by at least 10 to 1. No firearms should have been necessary with those physical odds, but the terrorists were banking on there being no one with the will to resist. Thanks for the affirmation.