how-to block ads
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to Chivalry
Re: Fair enough..
said by Chivalry  :I share the progressive belief that people have a right to privacy. Warrantless wiretapping infringes upon that privacy. Until it stops doing so, then I will be against it. If it's the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable" searches, that privacy right is not absolute. Just as your right to Habeus Corpus is not absolute. What is "reasonable" (or necessary for public safety in the case of Habeus Corpus) can vary greatly upon the circumstances. Just like our right to freedom of movement was nearly eliminated after 9/11 (all air travel stopped for a few days), it doesn't seem like a big stretch that the definition of "reasonable" search would tilt in the same direction.
Be that as it may, I'm glad we've gotten past quoting the Founders as if they had a view of absolute rights that we've strayed from. Hopefully I've demonstrated that they weren't much different than us.
Mark | |
Chivalry
Premium
join:2005-02-10
Chula Vista, CA
| reply to amigo_boy
Mark: "That's my point. The organic documents originated from *society*. Without a society that shared those common values they wouldn't have existed. Without a society that continues to share those values they won't exist."
Very philosophical. This member of society doesn't want to be wiretapped without his consent. He's here keeping that value alive in society.
After lots of historical information that doesn't apply today...
Mark: "Thus the dilemma: To what extent should rights be protected from society (possibly rendering them their own self-destruct mechanism), and how much should society be able to give and take before rights become self-destructive?"
To the extent that doesn't include warrantless wiretapping.
Mark: "You made a similar point when you said that just because this country has made mistakes [infringing on rights in the face of threats] in the past isn't justification for doing it again. Unfortunately, you have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. We don't know what would have happened if the NSA didn't have immediate access to ISP records. Just like we don't know what would have happened if President Lincoln hadn't suspended civil law in the territories, and Habeas Corpus in the states.
The opposite argument could be made that in the long term we came out without much harm."
We should not repeat mistakes that present similar circumstances that ended up being viewed by the consensus as wrong. My opposition to warrantless wiretapping is only partially based on our historical traditions. I share the progressive belief that people have a right to privacy. Warrantless wiretapping infringes upon that privacy. Until it stops doing so, then I will be against it. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Chivalry
said by Chivalry :If you argue that rights are directly tied to the whims of the government, then your views directly conflict with the principles upon which The United States was founded. ... It's from the Declaration of Independence: That's my point. The organic documents originated from *society*. Without a society that shared those common values they wouldn't have existed. Without a society that continues to share those values they won't exist.
I'm curious why you're quoting the Decl. of Ind. and Constitution, but omitting the Articles of Confederation. That proves my poiint about how the founding documents are often quoted out of context to make absolute points today. The topic under discussion is the infringement of 1st and 4th amendment protections. But,
1. Those amendments were narrowly adopted.
2. As part of an even narrower ratification of the Constitution.
3. At a time when states regularly infringed in ways that the new articles prohibited.
4. The states were forced to continue in their union under the Constitution (1860s)
5. (This is the real kicker) the new 1789 Constitution and Bill of Rights (a sop to the anti-federalists) were a direct result of Shay's Rebellion. Shay and his men rebelled against a whiskey tax justifyying their act using rhetoric from the country's founding just a decade earlier. It was the public outcry for a stronger federal government in response to SR that Thomas Jefferson wrote the often-quoted "What signify a few lives lost? The Tree of Liberty is watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Jefferson was on the losing side of that argument since the Federal government was created.
220 years ago even more expansive rights were reduced because the society that supported the ("less government") Articles of Confederation stopped their support due to abuses under that system! 170 years ago we dismissed with the notion of rights in order to preserve the union that those rights were dependent upon!
Thus the dilemma: To what extent should rights be protected from society (possibly rendering them their own self-destruct mechanism), and how much should society be able to give and take before rights become self-destructive?
said by Chivalry :This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy: There is no evidence to suggest that forcing corporations to abide by the law will cause more terrorist attacks, period. You made a similar point when you said that just because this country has made mistakes [infringing on rights in the face of threats] in the past isn't justification for doing it again. Unfortunately, you have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. We don't know what would have happened if the NSA didn't have immediate access to ISP records. Just like we don't know what would have happened if President Lincoln hadn't suspended civil law in the territories, and Habeas Corpus in the states.
The opposite argument could be made that in the long term we came out without much harm.
said by Chivalry :Traffic laws don't eliminate the liberty of driving a car; rather, they ensure that reckless drivers won't endanger the lives and/or property of sensible drivers. ... Would you expect a police car to follow you around in your car whenever you went for a drive? We do have the police following us around -- in the form of photo radar and red-light cameras. Why did those come into existence? Because a sufficient number of people demonstrated by their actions that they needed to be watched in order to exercise their rights by the rules (so everyone else could equally enjoy their rights to enter an intersection safely on a green light). If enough people speed and run red lights our freedom of movement would be worth very little. Thus, our freedom contracted a little in order to protect it in the long run.
The same thing with speed bumps. A social response to a growing problem of people who just can't do the correct thing without being watched. This leads to the question: Would you prefer to drive over speed bumps everywhere you go? Or, be watched by cameras to catch those who are actually the problem?
This is a good example of how it really does matter how the exercise of rights affect society, and the reality that society expands or contracts rights depending upon the circumstances.
I agree with you that these things don't "eliminate" our rights. It's just a matter of degrees (balacing competing interests). The same could be said for the response to 9/11. Everything from accessing ISP records to stopping all air flights for a few days.
said by Chivalry :Yes. They were contradictory. That's called being human. As I said, nothing has changed. What happened after 9/11 is no different than what has happened for the past 220 years. An imperfect society governing imperfect charters in the face of changing circumstances.
If you reply, please use the board's quoting features. This topic doesn't interest me enough to spend the time weeding out your words from what you're quoting.
Mark | |
|
