Trade

[FetishFool 0]

Would you give up some of your freedom or Constitutional Rights for increased National Security?

My opinion:

This poll is mainly directed at Americans because of recent events.

But Americans should value their Constitutional Rights with everything they have!!!

NO PART of it can be barted!!!

As for people in other countries... It depends on how much freedom you already have. Some of you have very few, if any, freedom.

But I'm still very interested in your opinions

[USSoldier11B 0]

Nope, won't budge. Not when the people causing the problems are not U.S. citizens and therefor are not entitled to the same rights.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone willing to give up their essential liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security.

[LBGS_Stewart 0]

my rights and freedomes are priceless. IMO the goverment already took manny rights and freedoms away for "increased security" such as gun laws manny of the gun laws that are now put in the books hurt the law buiding civillins then they help to prevent murders and theavs from having them. there is a saying "a lock is only to keep a honist man honist" in other words if they really want a gun they will get it no matter what. there is always the black market thus i feel this laws hurt the civilian from having a gun to protect yourself. think if you where a bank rober and you walked in to a bank and not knowing if 10 or so people have a consiled weapon would you really try to rob the bank. now with the laws we have now you can almost bet in most places no one has a gun exp a sercurity guard or other such athority. so this makes me wounder if our goverment has already gone to far. how can we take something away that has given ous our freedom. unfintly more time gose buy it looks like there not wanting ous to have firearms no longer meaning less freedom and consitonal rights this is my honist opion

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone willing to give up their essential liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security.

<span id='postcolor'>

yup

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- The Papers of Ben Franklin

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I dont know why people allow themselves to get so freaked out. Why allow the FBI to have new unprecedented powers to 'protect' us from terrorism when in fact most people are more likely to be shot by their neighbor or win the lottery than to be killed in a terrorist attack. So, whats the point of having perceived security? I mean, what the fuck are you going to do if you are completely safe for the next thirty years? Whack off? I mean cmon, danger is one of the things that make life feel like life

[USSoldier11B 0]

Yeah, I think alot of Americans are under the misconception that things are supposed to be peaceful and safe 100% of the time. Truth is, bad things will always happen.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ July 05 2002,06:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone willing to give up their essential liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security.<span id='postcolor'>

Benjamin Franklin was an idiot. The desire to live (and hence the need for security) is an essential human biological desire. "Freedom" and "human rights" is a modern social construction that is relatively new and sure as hell won't last for ever.

Edit: To answer Fetish's question: I would gladly give up the American constitution for a candy bar

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Its not just that, its a matter of putting things into perspective. I mean, as a special forces officer you know that the main strength of a surprise attack is that, for awhile, your enemy doesnt know the exact extent of the attack or the forces he is dealing with. If skillfully conducted, you can make the enemy feel like he is in a much worse position than he is. However, if you screw up, your enemy knows that he isnt in as much trouble as it seems, he conducts his actions aggressively, and suddenly you are in deep shit.

Thats how a terrorist works. They use flashy, graphic methods that seem to blow their capabilities or their real danger out of proportion. If we allow them to keep us back on our heels for this long, if we play into their hands by buttoning up, we not only weaken our ability to deal with them, we also slowly turn ourselves into what they perceive us to be: cowardly, spoiled, and obsessed with a status quo in which we are on top. But if we keep our chin up, and not allow this sort of thing to scare us into thinking that the sky is falling or that Bin Laden is behind you right now (Boo! lol), we can erode their base of support, and slowly but surely, there just wont be any with enough expertise to truly hurt us left.

[Guest]

I think Tex that your government contributes to that more nowdays then terrorist organizations do. By screaming "we are all soon going to be attacked" they only make things worse. The post 9/11 hysteria shows that the terrorists actually managed to get their wishes through.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 05 2002,08:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ July 05 2002,06:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone willing to give up their essential liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security.<span id='postcolor'>

Benjamin Franklin was an idiot. The desire to live (and hence the need for security) is an essential human biological desire. "Freedom" and "human rights" is a modern social construction that is relatively new and sure as hell won't last for ever.

Edit: To answer Fetish's question: I would gladly give up the American constitution for a candy bar <span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, in the area of politics you are without a clue as to how humans actually operate, no surprise you are a socialist. The security that could be afforded by suspending parts of the Constitution (Which, despite your ignorant arguments, is the greatest political document since the Magna Carta) would only be a perceived sense of security at best, and at worst it opens up the way for a truly Big Brother-esque state. What people dont understand (because they have been manipulated by terrorists, then the media, and then self serving politicians) is that they really dont have anything to fear from a terrorist attack. The statistical threat is negligible, and despite the tremendous scare instilled in us by the supposed land mark anthrax attacks, the simple fact remained that less than 5 people died. Shit man, 300,000 PLUS die from smoking every YEAR, which translates into several hundred a day, but people dont know/care, because noone is shoving it down their throat 24/7. But the media and the government (and the terrorists) have nothing to gain from alerting us to the dangers of smoking. They do however, reap a vast reward for making us tremble in fear of the dread word terrorism. The media gets record ratings, which they would love to continue having. The terrorists get their say, after a fashion, in a political system that they are too stupid/lazy to get involved in through conventional channels. And of course, the politicians and the government love being our guardians against terrorism, despite the fact that in most cases, it is government actions, not Joe-face-in-the-crowd's actions, that piss these terrorists off in the forst place. They love that we are willing to give up more freedoms, because then they have more to control, and when you have more to control, you need more government to control it with. And you need more money to keep that extra government going... can you see where Im going with this?

Yeah Denoir, the idea of feeling safe and secure is a natural human instinct, but so is curling up in a fetal position and whimpering when you come face to face with a lion. Its a knee jerk cheap emotional- I want my mommy response, and it sure as hell aint a viable option for you when people are out there trying to kill you. Of course, you could always hire the Mafia for protection, cuz you never know when somethin 'bad' might happen.

Finally, think about it this way: The safest place in the world is a prison cell. Nothing can get to you there. You are one hundred percent safe. But you are also completely without freedom.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Benjamin Franklin was an idiot. The desire to live (and hence the need for security) is an essential human biological desire. "Freedom" and "human rights" is a modern social construction that is relatively new and sure as hell won't last for ever.

<span id='postcolor'>

If you think so. Whatever Denoir. I can be sure though that he was nowhere near as arrogant as you are. What the hell do you mean freedom is a modern social construction? People have desired freedom for just as long as they have desired security.

*puts on nomex suit*

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ July 05 2002,09:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 05 2002,08:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ July 05 2002,06:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone willing to give up their essential liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security.<span id='postcolor'>

Benjamin Franklin was an idiot. The desire to live (and hence the need for security) is an essential human biological desire. "Freedom" and "human rights" is a modern social construction that is relatively new and sure as hell won't last for ever.

Edit: To answer Fetish's question: I would gladly give up the American constitution for a candy bar <span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, in the area of politics you are without a clue as to how humans actually operate, no surprise you are a socialist.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL. I feel that I ran over your toes with a buldozer. FYI, I am not a socialist, I am a liberal politically. While by American standards it is left wing, in Sweden it is a part of the right wing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The security that could be afforded by suspending parts of the Constitution (Which, despite your ignorant arguments, is the greatest political document since the Magna Carta) would only be a perceived sense of security at best, and at worst it opens up the way for a truly Big Brother-esque state. <span id='postcolor'>

This show that you are very naÄf or have had a brainwashing education. I tend to think the latter. The American constitution is one of thousand models of how to govern a society. The ideas wern't new when presented and today it is one of the worst constitutions in the (democratic) world because of its inflexibility. You have no more rights then people in other democratic countries but you have the restriction of not being able to reconstruct the system from scratch. I understand that it is the most importrant political achievement for USA, but you are a very very very young country. I guess some things must come with experience.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

What people dont understand (because they have been manipulated by terrorists, then the media, and then self serving politicians) is that they really dont have anything to fear from a terrorist attack. The statistical threat is negligible, and despite the tremendous scare instilled in us by the supposed land mark anthrax attacks, the simple fact remained that less than 5 people died. Shit man, 300,000 PLUS die from smoking every YEAR, which translates into several hundred a day, but people dont know/care, because noone is shoving it down their throat 24/7. But the media and the government (and the terrorists) have nothing to gain from alerting us to the dangers of smoking. They do however, reap a vast reward for making us tremble in fear of the dread word terrorism. The media gets record ratings, which they would love to continue having. The terrorists get their say, after a fashion, in a political system that they are too stupid/lazy to get involved in through conventional channels. And of course, the politicians and the government love being our guardians against terrorism, despite the fact that in most cases, it is government actions, not Joe-face-in-the-crowd's actions, that piss these terrorists off in the forst place. They love that we are willing to give up more freedoms, because then they have more to control, and when you have more to control, you need more government to control it with. And you need more money to keep that extra government going... can you see where Im going with this?

<span id='postcolor'>

Absolutely. That's about what I said in my last post. The ones that are to blame for the hysteria are the goverment and media.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah Denoir, the idea of feeling safe and secure is a natural human instinct, but so is curling up in a fetal position and whimpering when you come face to face with a lion. Its a knee jerk cheap emotional- I want my mommy response, and it sure as hell aint a viable option for you when people are out there trying to kill you. Of course, you could always hire the Mafia for protection, cuz you never know when somethin 'bad' might happen<span id='postcolor'>

The human rights (btw a socialist construction) are very arbitrary. I can imagine several rights that I would rather have then the ones that I have now. If you have all your needs and desires fulfilled, you need no rights. Take Kuwait for example. They were non-democratic but happy since they were on average very rich and had a good life without wanting any political change. After the war the US more or less forced them to adopt a more democratic regime. The result: People were unhappy and started to loath the US. Human rights evolved from the situation in feudal Europe where a lot of people lived shitty lifes to please the chosen few. These rights make sense in that context: when things are bad. They are a very arbitrary social construction of the times and should IMO be revised and reviewed constantly instead of refusing to change them because they are holy cows.

You are surely going to say that these rights guarantee us that we keep a democratic government and prevent getting a dictatorship. That is true but also irrelevant. You have to think one step further. Who says that we want to keep democracy for ever? The modern day democracies are a relatively new construction. In the history of the world we have so far changed all systems that we have had in the past. You can't be serious if you are saying that we in the future won't change democracy.

[USSoldier11B 0]

As always Denoir, I respect your political opinions, but hurling ad hominim insults at American founding fathers is hitting a little below the belt. Why can't you respect our ideals and beliefs? Also remember, although you might not be left wing enough in Europe to considered a socialist, you appear to be moderately socialist to an American, especially a conservative one.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 05 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As always Denoir, I respect your political opinions, but hurling ad hominim insults at American founding fathers is hitting a little below the belt. Why can't you respect our ideals and beliefs?<span id='postcolor'>

Hm. Ok. I'll revise my statement. For his times Benjamin Franklin was not an idiot. But people who think that his ideals and models of a society still apply today as well as they did then are What also bugs me is the brainwashed approach that even intelligent people take when it comes to the constitution. It very much reminds me of people from the Soviet union. Different ideals but same militant and brainwashed defense of them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also remember, although you might not be left wing enough in Europe to considered a socialist, you appear to be moderately socialist to an American, especially a conservative one.<span id='postcolor'>

Not really. I am much more conservative then you think. It is just when I get confronted with extreme forms of conservativism I tend to go left to have a debate. I am pretty sure that I would go right if I had a discussion with a communist.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hm. Ok. I'll revise my statement. For his times Benjamin Franklin was not an idiot. But people who think that his ideals and models of a society still apply today as well as they did then are <span id='postcolor'>

Ummmm, that doesn't make me feel much better. So are people that live by the words of the bible stupid? Simply because it's philosophies are antiquated?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 05 2002,10:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hm. Ok. I'll revise my statement. For his times Benjamin Franklin was not an idiot. But people who think that his ideals and models of a society still apply today as well as they did then are <span id='postcolor'>

Ummmm, that doesn't make me feel much better. So are people that live by the words of the bible stupid? Simply because it's philosophies are antiquated?<span id='postcolor'>

Great example! What if we had said after the Old Testament was published that this was *the* law and that we wouldn't allow for any change? As society evolved we got the New Testament that while contradicting many of the Old Testament was a much more sound ideology for the new times. See my point?

[USSoldier11B 0]

Yes, I see your point and it makes sense. But the constitution was written to be flexible and to evolve with the society. It just has checks and balances to make sure that they are not altereted to easily or in a totalitarian manner. I guess it was my bad to compare it to the bible since many people consider it to be the actual word of god (therefor unalterable), not just an abstract created by man.

[Guest]

I'm not saying that the constitution is entirely outdated yet, but when it becomes that you will have problems. There are many things about your system that I admire. For instance the liberty of the individual is holy, and I like that very much. In Sweden, while we do have the same rights, everything is organized on a more practical level. For instance the juridical system is more designed to investigate the guilt and then convict the guilty (or free the innocent). It's hard to put the finger on what is different (because in theory the systems are more or less identical), but there is a difference. And I like the American system better.

However there are some insane things in your constitution too. What is the point of all safeguards when you then implement a system where the supreme court is politically chosen? That's just insane. Your founding fathers must have been drunk the time they wrote that part No other democratic system in the world has a juridical system that is controlled by whoever is in power.

[Major Fubar 0]

Um, who's the jailbait babe in your sig?

[FetishFool 0]

Girl from my signature @ TeenPlanet.org

I surveyed some of my work friends and teen friends (Canadians).

Most of them say "Yes!" to giving up some of their Rights for increased national security.

The rest said "Maybe". And few said "No".

I think Canadians say Yes because we're confident that our government will restore what freedom we lost after the threat is over.

American surveys showed the same results as me. But there's no guarantee that the US Govt would ever restore the Constitution.

The 2nd Ammendment is already broken. So who knows what more the US Govt would do if the public support them.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

You were all wrong about Franklin's quote, which actually is:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

It used to be in my signature a long time ago.

And I disagree with Denoir who believes that anyone who still believes in their civil liberties is an idiot. Benjamin Franklin is saying they that can give up essential liberty, like freedom of speech, freedom of your privacy, things like that just so they can get a little temporary security, such as letting the police jail people for saying terrorist like things, or sympathizing with them, do not deserve their saftey because they are horrible Americans who cannot grasp the importance of their right to freedom.

Edit:

And if I did a survey in my workplace right now I'm certain that nearly everyone would say "No!" if not everyone considering I work at The Cato Institute which is a libertarian think-tank in D.C.

There's a link to the website in my sig.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 05 2002,15:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I disagree with Denoir who believes that anyone who still believes in their civil liberties is an idiot.  Benjamin Franklin is saying they that can give up essential liberty, like freedom of speech, freedom of your privacy, things like that just so they can get a little temporary security, such as letting the police jail people for saying terrorist like things, or sympathizing with them, do not deserve their saftey because they are horrible Americans who cannot grasp the importance of their right to freedom.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a pretty radical interpretation of what I said. What I meant was:

1) Civil liberties are a luxury. If your life is threatened, who cares about the right to vote? Sacrificing your life for political ideologies is always dangerous and will ultimately lead to conflicts with people who don't share the same ideologies as you. The WTC attacks are a shining example of that.

2) The civil liberties that we have are arbitrary. They were constructed during the 18th century with regard to the social situation that was present then. That doesn't mean that they will be forever.

3) In a society where all our demands are met, we don't need many of the civil liberties.

Note that I am not saying anything about the current situation in USA. I don't see how USA would be seriously threatened today by any terrorist organization. What the Bush administration is doing now is a mild form of a coup d'état IMO.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

I see your point, but I don't think you get the bigger picture.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Civil liberties are a luxury. If your life is threatened, who cares about the right to vote?<span id='postcolor'>

Our right to live is a civil liberty. Consider if a law was passed which gave the death penalty for speaking against the government. See my point?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The civil liberties that we have are arbitrary. They were constructed during the 18th century with regard to the social situation that was present then. That doesn't mean that they will be forever.<span id='postcolor'>

Who cares if it wont be around forever? Your argument is irrelevent. We are living now, and I don't want my civil liberties infringed. Ya sure we can say "eventually the whole world will be communist" or "eventually we'll all be so englighted that there will be no government at all and we all respect and help each other"

But those are hypothetical situations which deal with the far future.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In a society where all our demands are met, we don't need many of the civil liberties.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, this relates to the "Eventually we'll all be englightened and live without government" Right now we need civil liberties to protect ourselves from oppressive government. Bottom line.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 05 2002,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see your point, but I don't think you get the bigger picture.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Civil liberties are a luxury. If your life is threatened, who cares about the right to vote?<span id='postcolor'>

Our right to live is a civil liberty.  Consider if a law was passed which gave the death penalty for speaking against the government.  See my point?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't agree with that at all. The desire to live is much more basic and fundamental then the so called 'civil liberties'.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The civil liberties that we have are arbitrary. They were constructed during the 18th century with regard to the social situation that was present then. That doesn't mean that they will be forever.<span id='postcolor'>

Who cares if it wont be around forever? Your argument is irrelevent. We are living now, and I don't want my civil liberties infringed. Ya sure we can say "eventually the whole world will be communist" or "eventually we'll all be so englighted that there will be no government at all and we all respect and help each other"

But those are hypothetical situations which deal with the far future.

<span id='postcolor'>

That goes for today too. How meaningful is for example the right to vote when you have two parties and less then 50% of the people choose to vote, like in USA.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In a society where all our demands are met, we don't need many of the civil liberties.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, this relates to the "Eventually we'll all be englightened and live without government" Right now we need civil liberties to protect ourselves from oppressive government. Bottom line.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you consider your current goverment oppressive?