5 ms·

Would you want to be the one who relaxed border controls and let the terrorists in? Yes, that's a stupid question but that's the political trade-off here. Mind

Would you want to be the one who relaxed border controls and let the terrorists in? Yes, that's a stupid question but that's the political trade-off here. Mind blowing inconvenience and temporary invasion of freedoms versus dead children. If anything happened, you and everybody around you would be unelectable. Perhaps for that reason alone this should be put to a national vote. That's a much cleaner way to divest political responsibility. And while I think there's a lot of evidence that the direct effectiveness of Security Theatre is pretty weak. It's much harder to gauge what would actually happen if they dropped the visual deterrents. Would more people try their luck? Is it worth the risk?

gizmo 10y ago
After 9/11 Bush's popularity shot through the roof, so I dispute your claim that terrorism causes a politician to become unelectable. I'm sure you can think of many other events that should have ruined a politician's career but didn't. The "is removing theater worth the risk" rhetoric, along with "somebody please think of the children", can be used to dismantle ANY of the freedoms we currently enjoy. So I don't find that at all persuasive. If it's possible for politicians to introduce new invasive laws but impossible to remove them then it's pretty clear where the country ends up. So yes, it's totally 100% worth the risk. Because the alternative is accepting that all our freedoms will continue to erode, and that's far more depressing than any amount of terrorism.
- oliwarner 10y ago
  Firstly, that wasn't my claim. I was talking about doing something that could be seen as a causative action (like lowering airport security). You seem fairly freedom-uber-alles —as many vocal people are— but it'd be genuinely interesting to get referendum results on issues like this to see just how much freedom people will willingly hand over for the mere hope of added safety for them and their family. I agree with you. Fear-mongering arguments are used to dismantle freedom all the time and it genuinely inconveniences a lot of people to suffer through things like TFA, but we're talking about a fraction of a percent of travellers. Would the whole agree with you or succumb to herd mentality and try to stay safe, whatever the cost?
  - gizmo 10y ago
    Where you italicize "doing", I italicize "seen". Because for politicians what matters is the narrative, not whether there exist a causal link between policy choices and outcomes. After all, politicians get held accountable for the policy choices of their predecessors if they're not careful, and on the flip side try to blame external factors for the fallout of their own failed policies. I'm not freedom-uber-alles, I'm happy to acknowledge all of politics consists of difficult trade-offs. I think the case for the TSA is especially weak, though, and you seem to agree with me on that. I don't think referendums on these issues would help, because it's too easy to scare people into accepting "temporary measures".

gizmo 10y ago

After 9/11 Bush's popularity shot through the roof, so I dispute your claim that terrorism causes a politician to become unelectable. I'm sure you can think of many other events that should have ruined a politician's career but didn't. The "is removing theater worth the risk" rhetoric, along with "somebody please think of the children", can be used to dismantle ANY of the freedoms we currently enjoy. So I don't find that at all persuasive. If it's possible for politicians to introduce new invasive laws but impossible to remove them then it's pretty clear where the country ends up. So yes, it's totally 100% worth the risk. Because the alternative is accepting that all our freedoms will continue to erode, and that's far more depressing than any amount of terrorism.

oliwarner 10y ago
Firstly, that wasn't my claim. I was talking about doing something that could be seen as a causative action (like lowering airport security). You seem fairly freedom-uber-alles —as many vocal people are— but it'd be genuinely interesting to get referendum results on issues like this to see just how much freedom people will willingly hand over for the mere hope of added safety for them and their family. I agree with you. Fear-mongering arguments are used to dismantle freedom all the time and it genuinely inconveniences a lot of people to suffer through things like TFA, but we're talking about a fraction of a percent of travellers. Would the whole agree with you or succumb to herd mentality and try to stay safe, whatever the cost?
- gizmo 10y ago
  Where you italicize "doing", I italicize "seen". Because for politicians what matters is the narrative, not whether there exist a causal link between policy choices and outcomes. After all, politicians get held accountable for the policy choices of their predecessors if they're not careful, and on the flip side try to blame external factors for the fallout of their own failed policies. I'm not freedom-uber-alles, I'm happy to acknowledge all of politics consists of difficult trade-offs. I think the case for the TSA is especially weak, though, and you seem to agree with me on that. I don't think referendums on these issues would help, because it's too easy to scare people into accepting "temporary measures".