5 ms·

"Those who would trade their freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." "Likely to commit crimes" is not just grounds, especially under the US con

by mtempm 9y ago

"Those who would trade their freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." "Likely to commit crimes" is not just grounds, especially under the US constitution, to remove a citizen's constitutional rights. 'What signify a few lives lost in a century? The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' Just so you are aware, clever tyrants always have taken liberties from their subjects in the name of moral righteousness. The people who established the concept of unalienable constitutional rights here in America were accustomed to the idea that a few lives lost lost in the process of was unavoidable.

sbov 9y ago
> "Those who would trade their freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." Please stop (mis)qouting this. It means almost the exact opposite of the point people tend to try to make with it. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous...
- 8note 9y ago
  If I'm reading this right, the context still says that one should not give up their rights in exchange for safety. If it was strictly pro defense, he would've taken the money and given up on governance. Having tax authority is essential for the government, and it shouldn't give it up for the sake of temporary defence money; privacy is essential to citizens, and shouldn't be given up for temporary protection from terrorists. Prescriptivist linguistics is pretty silly though -- words mean what people use them fo
  - mtempm 9y ago
    The above cited manipulation in the NPR article on Franklin's quote is frustrating. I used to listen to NPR 10 years ago, but today I tend to tune out[1]. Yes Franklin said a quote in a context, it does not mean he did not mean what he said. The quote is about giving up essential liberties to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. That's virtually the exact quote. If he wanted to say something that wasnt about giving up liberties for safety then he could have said that, instead, but he didnt do that. 1-stories glorifying transgender 9-year-olds is the type of thing that is now somehow standard on NPR: www.npr.org/2017/03/03/518206326/transgender-boy-finds-his-bros-and-himself-at-camp
meowface 9y ago
I don't want the NSA accessing data like this without a warrant, but their job needs to get done somehow and by someone. Ideally with a lot more oversight, but calls to outright disband the organization are shortsighted. I'm also thinking long-long term. Terrorism isn't a seriously considerable risk to an individual American, but what about in 50 or 100 years? What if in the distant future, terrorist groups or weird death cults like Aum Shinrikyo are able to more easily develop or obtain biological or chemical weapons that can dissipate into a large urban area quickly? What if multiple attacks like that start to occur? We need to have some kind of counter to that. In terms of pure risk vs. reward trade-off, the current state of affairs isn't really worth it, but it's not hard to envision a future world where terrorism is truly a constant and valid fear in a first world country. That future hypothetical doesn't justify anything NSA does right now, no, but I think it (along with various threats from competing superpowers) does justify the need for some implementation of a security agency and intelligence community in every modern country. Also, you're kind of mixing up different quotes that aren't really related to the specific issue.
- gleenn 9y ago
  A future with some ominous terrorist threat is not a justification for now or then. The NSA should never violate the Constitution ever. Especially when ordered not to do so. I think the quotes are both entirely relevant. You are suggesting trade-offs, the quotes say it is never worth it.
- 1001101 9y ago
  In terms of risk, you have a greater chance of being killed by lightning, drowning in the tub, being buried alive, [1] killed by cows, hot tap water, falling down the stairs, dogs, vending machines, bees, texing and driving, swing sets, wind, football, roller coasters, lawn mowers, your bed, [2] being crushed by furniture, or being shot by a toddler. But by all means, let's spend trillions of dollars (not being hyperbolic here), and take away everyone's constitutional rights. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-choking-be-killed-foreign-terrorists-n715141 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-c... [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-choking-be-killed-foreign-terrorists-n715141 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-c...

by mtempm 9y ago

sbov 9y ago

> "Those who would trade their freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." Please stop (mis)qouting this. It means almost the exact opposite of the point people tend to try to make with it. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous...

8note 9y ago
If I'm reading this right, the context still says that one should not give up their rights in exchange for safety. If it was strictly pro defense, he would've taken the money and given up on governance. Having tax authority is essential for the government, and it shouldn't give it up for the sake of temporary defence money; privacy is essential to citizens, and shouldn't be given up for temporary protection from terrorists. Prescriptivist linguistics is pretty silly though -- words mean what people use them fo
- mtempm 9y ago
  The above cited manipulation in the NPR article on Franklin's quote is frustrating. I used to listen to NPR 10 years ago, but today I tend to tune out[1]. Yes Franklin said a quote in a context, it does not mean he did not mean what he said. The quote is about giving up essential liberties to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. That's virtually the exact quote. If he wanted to say something that wasnt about giving up liberties for safety then he could have said that, instead, but he didnt do that. 1-stories glorifying transgender 9-year-olds is the type of thing that is now somehow standard on NPR: www.npr.org/2017/03/03/518206326/transgender-boy-finds-his-bros-and-himself-at-camp

meowface 9y ago

I don't want the NSA accessing data like this without a warrant, but their job needs to get done somehow and by someone. Ideally with a lot more oversight, but calls to outright disband the organization are shortsighted. I'm also thinking long-long term. Terrorism isn't a seriously considerable risk to an individual American, but what about in 50 or 100 years? What if in the distant future, terrorist groups or weird death cults like Aum Shinrikyo are able to more easily develop or obtain biological or chemical weapons that can dissipate into a large urban area quickly? What if multiple attacks like that start to occur? We need to have some kind of counter to that. In terms of pure risk vs. reward trade-off, the current state of affairs isn't really worth it, but it's not hard to envision a future world where terrorism is truly a constant and valid fear in a first world country. That future hypothetical doesn't justify anything NSA does right now, no, but I think it (along with various threats from competing superpowers) does justify the need for some implementation of a security agency and intelligence community in every modern country. Also, you're kind of mixing up different quotes that aren't really related to the specific issue.

gleenn 9y ago
A future with some ominous terrorist threat is not a justification for now or then. The NSA should never violate the Constitution ever. Especially when ordered not to do so. I think the quotes are both entirely relevant. You are suggesting trade-offs, the quotes say it is never worth it.
1001101 9y ago
In terms of risk, you have a greater chance of being killed by lightning, drowning in the tub, being buried alive, [1] killed by cows, hot tap water, falling down the stairs, dogs, vending machines, bees, texing and driving, swing sets, wind, football, roller coasters, lawn mowers, your bed, [2] being crushed by furniture, or being shot by a toddler. But by all means, let's spend trillions of dollars (not being hyperbolic here), and take away everyone's constitutional rights. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-choking-be-killed-foreign-terrorists-n715141 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-c... [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-choking-be-killed-foreign-terrorists-n715141 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-re-more-likely-die-c...