4 ms·

I don't know if the comment was comparing state sanctioned violence vs non-state sanctioned violence, but a quote comes to mind: "Those who would give up essen

by cbanek 9y ago

I don't know if the comment was comparing state sanctioned violence vs non-state sanctioned violence, but a quote comes to mind: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Basically, if we wanted to eliminate terrorism, we would have severely curtail freedom. And there aren't nearly as many terrorists as people think. More people die from car crashes, drug overdoses, etc. But changes in the law, the way police and law enforcement do things, could cause a loss of the liberties and freedoms we currently enjoy.

19eightyfour 9y ago
Oh, so you're saying the speaker was saying " some terrorism as opposed to the curtailing of freedoms that would come from eliminating" [1] is preferable ? I completely took it to mean: "I would prefer to live in the Islamic State, than in the USA with mass surveillance." Okay, well I'm undecided as to whether [1] would be preferable or not in the way it's phrased. What I have thought about tho is: - Yes we could eliminate terrorism, and it would take a lot of extreme measures ( that the West would be unlikely to get away with ) - But why should we eliminate terrorism, since from a purely political standpoint, it is quite useful. From any sufficiently emotive or divisive issue political motivation and utility can be extracted. For instance, the fear of terrorism helps the State advance legislation that it probably would not be talking about if we did not have terrorism. So the funny paradox I see is that, at this stage of human development, our States can actually benefit from using the spectre of terrorism to develop and advance themselves. Please take this in no way to mean justifying terrorism in any way...just to say that, IMHO, real politik dictates that terrorism has political benefits for the very State it is supposed to politically disadvantage.
- cbanek 9y ago
  The obvious point is that terrorism isn't something that can be eliminated. It's just like violence. The only difference between terrorism and violence is honestly a political message. If you want to say that the state can get away with things it couldn't before because of a war on something it can't win, I'm with you. The "war on drugs" is about as useful as waiting for Godot. But make no mistake, nobody thinks its about drugs. But overall, you seem to be taking these arguments to extremes that weren't really needed, and I'm not sure why. Nobody said anything about living in the Islamic State, and anyone who would take it that way I think has some serious thinking to do about their perspective.

by cbanek 9y ago

19eightyfour 9y ago

Oh, so you're saying the speaker was saying " some terrorism as opposed to the curtailing of freedoms that would come from eliminating" [1] is preferable ? I completely took it to mean: "I would prefer to live in the Islamic State, than in the USA with mass surveillance." Okay, well I'm undecided as to whether [1] would be preferable or not in the way it's phrased. What I have thought about tho is: - Yes we could eliminate terrorism, and it would take a lot of extreme measures ( that the West would be unlikely to get away with ) - But why should we eliminate terrorism, since from a purely political standpoint, it is quite useful. From any sufficiently emotive or divisive issue political motivation and utility can be extracted. For instance, the fear of terrorism helps the State advance legislation that it probably would not be talking about if we did not have terrorism. So the funny paradox I see is that, at this stage of human development, our States can actually benefit from using the spectre of terrorism to develop and advance themselves. Please take this in no way to mean justifying terrorism in any way...just to say that, IMHO, real politik dictates that terrorism has political benefits for the very State it is supposed to politically disadvantage.

cbanek 9y ago
The obvious point is that terrorism isn't something that can be eliminated. It's just like violence. The only difference between terrorism and violence is honestly a political message. If you want to say that the state can get away with things it couldn't before because of a war on something it can't win, I'm with you. The "war on drugs" is about as useful as waiting for Godot. But make no mistake, nobody thinks its about drugs. But overall, you seem to be taking these arguments to extremes that weren't really needed, and I'm not sure why. Nobody said anything about living in the Islamic State, and anyone who would take it that way I think has some serious thinking to do about their perspective.