View Single Post
Old 08-29-2005, 01:58 AM   #29
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris
The most basic purpose of government is to provide protection to it's people. People give small amounts of loyalty and money and the government returns protection, both from internal and external threats. While there are certainly more intricacies, the most important thing is that the government protects it's people, therefore serving it's purpose. If terrorists want to come at me hand to hand, one on one, i'll take them on, but that's not going to happen. If i'm going to be killed by a terrorist it will be with an explosive or other sort of weapon I can't deal with. The American government can deal with such threats though, and if that means reducing or eliminating some rights, even constitutional rights, then it is not only justified to do so, but obligated to do so. There is no question that the patriot act and other such legislation starts to step on certain rights, and it may go too far. However, I'd prefer to have my government go too far than not far enough when my life and the lives of others are at stake. The patriot act and such legislation is just "martial law lite", it's an evil, but a necessary evil for our own protection. We still have rights here, and we're still considerably more free than any other nation, we just have to start making some small sacrifices like every one else to protect ourselves and our nation.
Hmm, where to start, well, the government's job isn't to protect the people. perhaps in a roundabout way, but certainly not directly, that would be the armed forces most likely. Although police forces do this too. May not always be the case, there are those who wish to privatise the armed forces, loyalty to your government isn't required, they're basically the country's employees. The American government isn't required to protect you at the expense of liberty, in fact, it was specifically said by a Benjamin Franklin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

Even the aforementioned Declaration Of Independance says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... "

On the other hand of course, it could be argued that the consititution is out of date and unequipped to deal with terrorism, and updating it is prefectly in line with what the creators of it thought should happen. Living document and all that.

I think it's amazing that you're so accepting of this though, and things like The Patriot Act, I mean, how much of that do you think actually helps against terrorism? Or forgetting the Patriot Act for a second, does random bag searches on the New York subway system actually help?

If your government went too far I'm comforted that you'd change, but a little too far isn't enough for that to happen, or at least that's what I'm guessing, there would be a line they could cross that would make you want to change the government (and if you hadn't lost the vote by this point!).

I'd strongly disagree that The Patriot Act is a "necessary evil", and for that matter that the US is considerably more free than any other nation. There's parts of Scandinavia which seem to have greater freedom.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote