A Thought on Civil Liberties

For those who are excessively worried that security precautions can erode itno the civil liberties that make us great, I think it should be pointed out that if we we give some up voluntarily (while keeping the right to bring them back) nothing has really been eroded.

Please explain!!!


We give up our civil liberties while keeping the right to bring them back????


Who decides what civil liberties we give up? Who decides when we can exercise this "right" to bring them back?


Why do we have to give up our fundamental liberties at all? I'm not talking about enduring inconveniences. The right not to stand in an hour line at an airport while your bag is checked is NOT a fundamental civil liberty. We can increase security without giving up our civil liberties. I'm talking about civil liberties such as freedom of speech, the press, religion, etc. The right not to be arbitrarily detained or searched without reason. These are the civil liberties I am talking about not "inconveniences" that I think many are talking about.

You know what I mean.

No I don't.

Name one civil liberty that has been taken from the people and then returned(perhaps Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution during the Civil War was reversed, but things are much worse now because of the federal governments _ability_ to implement wide-ranging controls). The ""war" on drugs" has seen a huge widening of the federal government's reach. A lot of us in this little poker community travel the country with significant sums of cash which are just fat targets for law enforcement seizures. How many people know poker players who have cash seized. I do. And I've also been stopped driving to LV (for "weaving"), pressured into allowing a search of my car(I refused despite the implied sweetheart deal of allowing me off without a weaving ticket) and asked how much cash I was carrying. And that was just local law enforcement. The resources of the federal government scare me a lot more than a motorcycle jockey.


And that war was against a phantom menace. Against a real menace, I shudder to think. I'm not talking about curbside checkin. I'm talking about the government having the ability to store and read everyone's email and phone conversations. Cryptography is already effectively banned in many, many nations where you must register all keys with the authorities(like England -- they own your email there) and there was a movement afoot to try to do so similarly in the United States a couple of years ago. In a moment of clarity, the Clinton Administration eschewed, but that doesn't take it off the table forever. Everytime I hear about a new crisis(I'm not diminishing this one, believe me, but the magnitude of it actually serves to scare me more because of what may be proportionate reactions), I know some of my freedom is going to be eroded.


The American government should be vigilant towards terrorism. Americans should be vigilant towards the American government. People must realize that it is at the most trying times when they are required to be the most vigilant.


JG


"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Ben Franklin

Depends on who the "we" is. "'We' the people" in the constitution only referred to white male property owners. If, for example, we allow certain ethnic group to be treated differently than others, because "Arabs" were responsible for yesterday's event, something has indeed been eroded. Japanese Americans had their civil liberties suspended by "we" during World War II. They were later restored. Was nothing really eroded?


"Security" is another problematic word. The greatest evils have been done, by us and others, in the name of "national security."

I assume here you're talking about the security issue vis-a-vis airports and planes. Can you give an example of a civil liberty that we might consider giving up termporarily?

Those who sacrifice a little freedom for safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety. Benjamin franklin

n/t

Sklansky wrote:


""For those who are excessively worried that security precautions can erode itno the civil liberties that make us great, I think it should be pointed out that if we we give some up voluntarily (while keeping the right to bring them back) nothing has really been eroded.""


Sklansky chooses to ignore the fact that liberties are incredibly tougher to GET than to GIVE AWAY.


A business analogy, somewhat far fetched. Price wars have started on the same false principle, i.e. that WHATEVER one gives away, one can get back with the SAME effort. Hah! Companies have slashed margins to the bone in a price war, believeing that when the competition croaks, those margins would be easily recovered. Never happen.


It's a scam deal, folks. LIBERTY IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO GET! Its price is eternal vigilance, the man said. What is the price for NOT HAVING IT?...

Generally speaking good points; however, we really don't know just what "civil liberties" Sklansky may have been referring to, and whether he meant it in the most literal interpretation of civil liberties or may have been referring to things such as this example: if everyone is aware that at airports only one may be required to undergo a search, is that a violation of our civil liberties in this regard?