That's beside the point? Gaining security by losing freedom was always on the table. What's interesting is the cultural shift toward not caring about losing freedom.
That's beside the point? Gaining security by losing freedom was always on the table. What's interesting is the cultural shift toward not caring about losing freedom.
I think it is the point: there is a balance between freedom and safety.
For example, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun onto a plane. Most people would agree that is an acceptable trade of freedom for safety.
There are places with even less safety and more “freedom” than the US so people who take an absolutist view towards freedom also need to justify why the freedoms that the US does not grant are not valuable.
> I think it is the point: there is a balance between freedom and safety.
Sometimes. But that doesn’t imply freedom and security are fundamentally opposed.
It’s possible to trade freedom for security but it’s also possible that freedom creates security. Both can be true at the same time. Surveillance, not security, is what opposes freedom. Surveillance simply trades one form of insecurity for another at the cost of freedom.
> For example, it is illegal to carry a loaded handgun onto a plane. Most people would agree that is an acceptable trade of freedom for safety.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
2A seems to make the case that the freedom to bear arms creates security. Given how history played out it’s hard to argue against. I’m not arguing we should be able to take guns on planes but 2A is an example of freedom creating security.
Everything I want to do in public I can still do.
What "freedom" is lost? I gain security and lose no freedoms (unless you are doing something illegal).
When property crime is up 53%.. plenty of people are willing to lose "freedom" whatever you are referring to, in exchange for safety.
How about just general privacy? I mean do you really want someone / the government to be able to track everywhere you go?
- Going to your girlfriends place while the wife is at work
- Visiting a naughty shop
- Going into various companies for interviews while employed
With mass surveillance there is the risk of mass data leak. Would you be comfortable with a camera following you around at all times when you're in public? I wouldn't be.
The right to privacy, to not let the government have a master record of everywhere you've ever been and everything you've ever said just in case they decide to someday revoke free speech and due process, or decide it doesn't apply. Lately we have plenty of examples of how quickly that can happen.
You were recorded smoking marijuana, an illegal drug at the federal level.
You were recorded walking into an abortion clinic, although face recognition identified as a resident of a state where abortion is illegal.
The solution is to change the laws, not to stop enforcing them. Otherwise this is basically just giving up on the concept of having laws.
Well aren’t both of those things crimes? I’m not a fan of mass surveillance either but maybe pick a different example.
The second is clearly not. State governments don't have jurisdiction over their residents when they are out of state.
Read about Texas.
It's a crime to leave the state to get an abortion. They can prosecute when you return home.
There have been vigilante patrols in West Texas, watching the necessary routes out of the state. The law gives any resident the grounds to turn in their neighbor for planning to get an abortion.