| Hysteria City. It is too bad that so many people who take part in news forums are so hysterical in their positions. It is not their position or opinions that I complain about or disagree/agree with but the hysterical basis for it. The tone of their arguments undermines what may otherwise be a good point or constructive position.
It is a fact that with more laws, restrictions, government "protection", rules, and regulations comes a certain loss of personal freedom. However, it is a balance and collectively we must decide what that balance should be. For instance people may disagree what exactly the changes should be but most would agree that because of 9/11 and subsequent events the balance has in some areas for now shifted from where it was before and more towards protection. In the future it will hopefully shift back the other way.
As the article in question states: "Finding the right balance is difficult. Some groups that traditionally favor full disclosure--consumer groups, academics and the press--have come to support certain restrictions since the September terrorist attacks."
That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
|
| The main problem I'm seeing with your rosey picture of deciding as a whole population what we want, is that with the present psuedo-dichotomy we get to choose between one set of infringements or the other. On the left wing we have gun control, on the right wing we have abortion control. Both sides have tons of bad ideas, and it's a lose/lose situation to vote for either in some way. This is also the reason why many people don't bother to vote, they understand they're going to be screwed by either of the major parties.
Some people wear rose-glasses and think one party really has all of everyone's best interests in mind, but they don't, they have their own interest in mind.
Thanks for your opinions, but you're really only talking about two sides of one coin. |
