how-to block ads
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
Re: Fair enough..
said by jc100  :Dire Measures? Nothing ever justifies the removal of civil liberties. Civil liberties are only as good as the society that protects them. It's a contradiction. If that society risks not existing (due in part to its enemies using its protections to their advantage) what do you do? Protect the liberties that are being abused to the detriment of the society that protects them? Or, infringe on those liberties in order to ensure that they are always protected?
I agree it's not clear what justifies how much pragmatic infringement. But, it's definitely not as simple as "nothing ever justifies...." Even in normal day-to-day life we live with pragmatic infringements on what are otherwise absolutely-worded protections. For example, time, manner and place restrictions on speech and assembly. Nothing's absolute.
Mark | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | Protecting from whom or what? Are you trying to sell me on the fact the boogeyman is out to get you? If so, let's go into a police state and disregard all rights and rules. I mean, none of us are EVER safe in the real world. After all, the crime (20,000 murders a year), the auto deaths (40,000 a year)alone should scare anyone into never leaving their house. Should the government make it illegal to drive to ensure 40,000 people don't die a year? Should the government ban all firearms, steak knives, and any item that can be turned into a weapon? I mean, this would save 20,000 lives. Better yet, why not stick tracking devices on every one of us. That way, if we are in trouble, we can hit the button on them, and signal for immediate help. Why not man? You seem to say the ends justifies the means. Contrary to your assessment, the end never does justifies the means. Sir Patrick Henry said it best. Give me Liberty or Give me Death. Our forefathers and this man can't be wrong. Obviously, that makes you the latter. I for one believe that our government is here to serve us. That means following the laws in place to ensure that is done. When and IF they are broke, those who do it need to be held accountable. Nothing overrides this precedence. History speaks for itself on who has committed the most crimes on this country. I guarantee you historically speaking, Christians have more blood on their hands than any of these so called terrorists. Still, your odds of being killed by a murderer or in a car accident are far greater than the 4000 dead in the last 20 years form a terrorist. Around 500 to 1. So let's just outlaw everything, and turn this country into a police state. That way we can ensure everyone's safety and promise all that No Christians or Muslims will harm anyone. That way, we won't have to every worry about the time or place. It'll bet set in concrete and put in place indefinitely. Sounds good to me (sarcasm). Wish to cast your ballet? | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by jc100 :Protecting from whom or what? Are you trying to sell me on the fact the boogeyman is out to get you? We're talking about a response to real people crashing real jets into sky rises and government buildings. No need to change the subject to boogeymen.
said by jc100 :Should the government make it illegal to drive to ensure 40,000 people don't die a year? Should the government ban all firearms, steak knives, and any item that can be turned into a weapon? No, but your own logic (arguing the opposite extreme) would eliminate traffic laws, auto safety standards and regulation of firearm sales to felons because none of these things can prevent "all" problems or make us "completely" safe. This would place you in the irrelevant fringe.
Remember, I wasn't arguing against protecting rights. I argued that rights originate from society. You may say they are God-given. But, the bottom line is that if the society you're part of doesn't respect and protect those rights, then it doesn't matter where they originate from because you won't (practically speaking) have any.
Therefore, if the supremacy of our rights is dependent upon the society that respects them, then the preservation of that society is supreme. If that society is jeapordized it can be justified to infringe upon rights in order to preserve them.
This has happened during the entire history of this country. The massive crackdown in the early 1900s on Eastern European immigrants due to a rise in anarchism. President Lincoln's suspension of civil law in the territories, and Habeas Corpus nation wide (as the nation fragmented). Even the Alien and Sedition Act just ten years after ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The ASA was a huge infringement upon individual rights.
On a day-to-day basis we see the way our rights are predicated upon an orderly society. A perfect example is freedom of speech. Time, manner and place restrictions have always been accepted because it's obvious that society (which the protection of this right is dependent upon) wouldn't last long if everyone could speak whenever they want (no orderly "taking the microphone" at a public hearing). Or, demonstrating in any public place any time (like on the freeway during rush hour traffic).
Such balancing of interests (your interest to protest, and my interest to get home from work on the freeway) result in one thing: A limitation on your rights (therefore they aren't absolute) for the purpose that everyone can better enjoy their rights, exercising them in a more orderly manner. More extreme threats to the orderly exercise of rights (such gounding air flight for 3-4 days after 9/11) can result in greater limitations on rights. Examples are those mentioned above. And 9/11.
You may not like it. But, that's reality. It's nothing new in the history of this country.
said by jc100 :Our forefathers and this man can't be wrong. The founders of this country were tremendously contradictory (by the standards of those who usually quote them to prove absolute points). Everything from "all men are created equal" (as they owned slaves and didn't let women vote), to their rhetoric during the anti/federalist debates concerning individual rights -- as their respective states infringed those same rights, and the Founders didn't want to give the Federal government control to protect individuals against State and private infringements. (It wasn't until the 1920's that portions of the Federal Bill of Rights were selectively applied to State or private infringements, allowing redress in federal courts. This was due to passage of the 14th amendment 50 years earlier. Something the founders would not have ratified.).
said by jc100 :So let's just outlaw everything, and turn this country into a police state. That way we can ensure everyone's safety Sometimes it's good to discuss the extremes in order to understand the potential impact of moderate positions. But, you seem to rely on them a bit too much. If I follow your conclusion to the opposite extreme we would "outlaw nothing, and turn this country into an anarchist state. That way we can ensure everyone's fullest liberty." I'm sure you're not arguing that extreme. So, it's rather unconvincing to ascribe a similarly opposite extreme to those who simply aren't as upset about the notion of expanding and contracting rights.
Mark | |
Chivalry
Premium
join:2005-02-10
Chula Vista, CA
| Mark: "We're talking about a response to real people crashing real jets into sky rises and government buildings. No need to change the subject to boogeymen."
The official story is that Al Qaeda agents rammed these planes into the towers. There is some evidence that the attacks might have been staged, but I will accept the consensus for this argument. Now, tell me how protecting corporations from abiding by the law has anything to do with Al Qaeda. 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.
Mark: "No, but your own logic (arguing the opposite extreme) would eliminate traffic laws, auto safety standards and regulation of firearm sales to felons because none of these things can prevent 'all' problems or make us 'completely' safe. This would place you in the irrelevant fringe."
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. We still have the right to drive our cars to whatever destination we please without reporting to the government where we're going (this isn't China---thank the good Lord). In this case, the NSA has wiretapped Americans that haven't been accused of any crime. Would you expect a police car to follow you around in your car whenever you went for a drive? I don't. In fact, police officers can get in trouble for following people around without probable cause for a stop. (It's called "stalking".) I also expect the government to keep its nose out of my conversations.
Mark: "Remember, I wasn't arguing against protecting rights. I argued that rights originate from society. You may say they are God-given. But, the bottom line is that if the society you're part of doesn't respect and protect those rights, then it doesn't matter where they originate from because you won't (practically speaking) have any."
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.
Perhaps you've heard this before. It's from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Source:»www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/de···ion.html
"All human beings are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." Yes, that means God gave them those rights. They don't originate from society; they originate from the fact that we're alive.
Mark: "Therefore, if the supremacy of our rights is dependent upon the society that respects them, then the preservation of that society is supreme. If that society is jeapordized it can be justified to infringe upon rights in order to preserve them."
The sanctity of American society is jeopardized by protecting lawbreakers from being brought to justice. If your aim is to preserve society, then you should write Senator Dodd and thank him for his efforts. He's working towards exactly what you want.
Mark: "This has happened during the entire history of this country. The massive crackdown in the early 1900s on Eastern European immigrants due to a rise in anarchism. President Lincoln's suspension of civil law in the territories, and Habeas Corpus nation wide (as the nation fragmented). Even the Alien and Sedition Act just ten years after ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The ASA was a huge infringement upon individual rights.
I agree with you: The ASA was a black mark on our country's history. Why would we want to repeat our mistake?
Mark: "On a day-to-day basis we see the way our rights are predicated upon an orderly society. A perfect example is freedom of speech. Time, manner and place restrictions have always been accepted because it's obvious that society (which the protection of this right is dependent upon) wouldn't last long if everyone could speak whenever they want (no orderly 'taking the microphone' at a public hearing). Or, demonstrating in any public place any time (like on the freeway during rush hour traffic)."
It's time to read again. Yes, there have always been restrictions on the First Amendment, but you've again made a connection to "society" (the "governed" in the declaration of independence) as the principal reason for freedom of speech. This is incorrect:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Source: »www.law.cornell.edu/constitution···hts.html
It should be noted that "freedom of speech" doesn't give you the right to infringe upon the rights of others to speak their mind. For example, if one were to walk the street screaming obscenities, that would not be protected under the first amendment.
Observe that the First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law...".
That precedes the statements regarding freedom of speech, following freedom of religion. The first amendment was created to stop the government from infringing upon our rights, not to stop the governed from embracing their liberties.
Mark: "You may not like it. But, that's reality. It's nothing new in the history of this country."
The issue isn't that we've had events occur that were shameful to the spirit of the United States; it's that we want to discourage unscrupulous people of eroding away the rights of the governed now.
African Americans once had no liberties. Would you rather that we return to that era and strip them of their rights again "because it's happened before"? No. Just because something similarly bad has happened in history doesn't mean we want to repeat it. That would be illogical.
Mark: "The founders of this country were tremendously contradictory (by the standards of those who usually quote them to prove absolute points). Everything from "all men are created equal" (as they owned slaves and didn't let women vote), to their rhetoric during the anti/federalist debates concerning individual rights -- as their respective states infringed those same rights, and the Founders didn't want to give the Federal government control to protect individuals against State and private infringements. (It wasn't until the 1920's that portions of the Federal Bill of Rights were selectively applied to State or private infringements, allowing redress in federal courts. This was due to passage of the 14th amendment 50 years earlier. Something the founders would not have ratified.).
Yes. They were contradictory. That's called being human.
The progression of society often reveals to us exactly how barbaric we were in the past. Evils like slaves, sex with children, and other things that were either accepted or tolerated in society are now unacceptable to us. That said, the founders were human beings. They were flawed. They couldn't have anticipated how society would progress in hundreds of years. Our society today would seem alien to them.
That being known, the United States enjoyed unparalleled success over time because the founders did such a good job being fair and equitable about what they could while still being vulnerable to vices just like every other human being. You can't look at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and say, "Well, they left out Blacks and Women. Nothing else in the documents matters."
Mark: "Sometimes it's good to discuss the extremes in order to understand the potential impact of moderate positions. But, you seem to rely on them a bit too much. If I follow your conclusion to the opposite extreme we would "outlaw nothing, and turn this country into an anarchist state. That way we can ensure everyone's fullest liberty."
It's especially good to examine the extremes when they're staring you directly in the face, such as with preemptive wiretapping.
You are right that jc100 wasn't arguing that the United States should be turned into a police state. Not only would this be inconsistent with the point he or she was trying to make, but they were also being sarcastic. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| 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 | |
Chivalry
Premium
join:2005-02-10
Chula Vista, CA
| 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
| 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 | |
|
