8 ms·

I bet that those responsible for 9/11 couldn’t have hoped in their wettest dreams that Americans will be subject to random strip searches and patdowns in their

by option 6y ago

I bet that those responsible for 9/11 couldn’t have hoped in their wettest dreams that Americans will be subject to random strip searches and patdowns in their own country for decades to come. Terrorists and US gov response made that happen. Time for the citizens to ask - whether that response was right. “Those willing to give up a little bit of freedom to gain a little bit of security deserve neither and will soon lose both”

DangitBobby 6y ago
I wonder how many people have quoted this in defense of refusing to wear a mask.
- option 6y ago
  wearing the mask is much more about respect/protection for others than for the one who wears it.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    That's true, though you shouldn't entirely discount the protection it provides to you as well.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  I'm sure people have also quoted this in defense of not wearing a shirt at a restaurant. Not everything is absolute - the degree matters. Having to wear a mask in public during a pandemic is a much lighter imposition of liberties than a habitual search of possessions and belongings, and arbitrary "random" strip-searches when one boards a flight.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    My thoughts are this: The statement sounds powerful and appealing. But if you think about what it means, really, it turns out to be an extremist viewpoint with little meaning. People who give up freedom for security don't "deserve" neither. We give up freedom for security all the time, and we are often better off for it. I would argue that without security you cannot have freedom; some security is necessary to achieve a free society. How free are you if you must constantly look over your shoulder to see if someone is coming to take what you have or hurt who you love? So sure, we can talk about the trade offs and whether we should require IDs at the airport. But the quote, I think, is a misrepresentation of the stakes.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    The crucial difference is "the right to swing your arms ends at my nose" essentially. The actual impact on other people is what makes the limitations acceptable. That is an important distinction compared to random searches because you "might" have done something wrong.
- whynotkeithberg 6y ago
  I love this response... It is pretty much a perfect encapsulation of the delusions of most libertarians. I agree with a portion of their ideals... But they really have no logic behind it that isn't extremely wishy-washy and what they really are wanting is anarchy as long as it benefits them and they are vying for a society that cannot function with any safety unless you have the means to buy it. Society needs to have controls in order to provide for the weaker people. A huge portion of the tech libertarians literally would have no way of protecting themselves outside of their money. They just want less restrictions on their ability to earn money not the actual freedom they are supposedly arguing for. The founding fathers were not libertarians, capitalism is not the issue it's crony capitalism Tax cuts do not trickle down You didn't become rich on your own & the poor don't deserve to stay that way and a vast majority of them did not do something to deserve to be that way. It's the same as religious people arguing that other religions belong in hellb ecause they were born into that religion so of course they believe it. Libertarians believe in property rights... So therefore they obviously believe in government intervention because who else is going to protect those rights? Libertarians motto is basically just "Semper I fuck the other guy" I gots mine I don't care what happens to you... But they want government and protections to protect them and their belongings. They champion the rights of people who deny other peoples rights and try to shift the blame to the person being persecuted. Yet anytime something happens they don't agree with they yell persecution and demand intervention to fix it.
atonse 6y ago
To me this isn't a question of liberty or not. I find that silly. You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. You probably have a constitutional right to free movement within the US (whether it's walking, driving, etc). The bigger issue with these pat downs, scans, fluid limits, etc is whether they're effective. Bruce Schneier has written at great length (and very smartly) about this stuff. And I agree with him that the single most effective deterrent to the next 9/11 is secure cockpit doors, and a close second is passengers not willing to "allow" a plane to get hijacked anymore (whereas hijackings in the past had a sliver of hope that you'd get out safely, after 9/11 I think passengers know there might be certain death, so why not fight?)
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  It seems you’ve misunderstood the constitution. It limits the government, ensuring our freedom. The govt has no right to prevent us from flying, domestically at least. Other countries are free to make demands at their borders.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) limit the government. The Articles of the Constitution assign the rights and responsibilities of the government. > The govt has no right to prevent us from flying You have also misunderstood the Constitution. The government does have the right to limit our individual rights either because we have lost them after due process (eg. you have no right to fly if you are serving a prison sentence) or due to national security actions (eg. you have no right to fly if the country grounds all flights like it did immediately after 9/11).
    - mixmastamyk 6y ago
      Inalienable rights cannot be taken away by governments, which don't have rights. That there are temporary exceptions for prisons and emergencies is inconsequential to this thread.
- option 6y ago
qubex 6y ago
I seriously doubt that a lot of the “such-and-such mean that the terrorists won” would score very highly on the actual terrorist’s criteria for success... they seriously desired to destroy the West and institute a theocratic Caliphate in the Middle East, and that hasn’t occurred. This is just infra-Western rumination.

by option 6y ago

DangitBobby 6y ago

I wonder how many people have quoted this in defense of refusing to wear a mask.

option 6y ago
wearing the mask is much more about respect/protection for others than for the one who wears it.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  That's true, though you shouldn't entirely discount the protection it provides to you as well.
freeone3000 6y ago
I'm sure people have also quoted this in defense of not wearing a shirt at a restaurant. Not everything is absolute - the degree matters. Having to wear a mask in public during a pandemic is a much lighter imposition of liberties than a habitual search of possessions and belongings, and arbitrary "random" strip-searches when one boards a flight.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  My thoughts are this: The statement sounds powerful and appealing. But if you think about what it means, really, it turns out to be an extremist viewpoint with little meaning. People who give up freedom for security don't "deserve" neither. We give up freedom for security all the time, and we are often better off for it. I would argue that without security you cannot have freedom; some security is necessary to achieve a free society. How free are you if you must constantly look over your shoulder to see if someone is coming to take what you have or hurt who you love? So sure, we can talk about the trade offs and whether we should require IDs at the airport. But the quote, I think, is a misrepresentation of the stakes.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The crucial difference is "the right to swing your arms ends at my nose" essentially. The actual impact on other people is what makes the limitations acceptable. That is an important distinction compared to random searches because you "might" have done something wrong.
whynotkeithberg 6y ago
I love this response... It is pretty much a perfect encapsulation of the delusions of most libertarians. I agree with a portion of their ideals... But they really have no logic behind it that isn't extremely wishy-washy and what they really are wanting is anarchy as long as it benefits them and they are vying for a society that cannot function with any safety unless you have the means to buy it. Society needs to have controls in order to provide for the weaker people. A huge portion of the tech libertarians literally would have no way of protecting themselves outside of their money. They just want less restrictions on their ability to earn money not the actual freedom they are supposedly arguing for. The founding fathers were not libertarians, capitalism is not the issue it's crony capitalism Tax cuts do not trickle down You didn't become rich on your own & the poor don't deserve to stay that way and a vast majority of them did not do something to deserve to be that way. It's the same as religious people arguing that other religions belong in hellb ecause they were born into that religion so of course they believe it. Libertarians believe in property rights... So therefore they obviously believe in government intervention because who else is going to protect those rights? Libertarians motto is basically just "Semper I fuck the other guy" I gots mine I don't care what happens to you... But they want government and protections to protect them and their belongings. They champion the rights of people who deny other peoples rights and try to shift the blame to the person being persecuted. Yet anytime something happens they don't agree with they yell persecution and demand intervention to fix it.

atonse 6y ago

To me this isn't a question of liberty or not. I find that silly. You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. You probably have a constitutional right to free movement within the US (whether it's walking, driving, etc). The bigger issue with these pat downs, scans, fluid limits, etc is whether they're effective. Bruce Schneier has written at great length (and very smartly) about this stuff. And I agree with him that the single most effective deterrent to the next 9/11 is secure cockpit doors, and a close second is passengers not willing to "allow" a plane to get hijacked anymore (whereas hijackings in the past had a sliver of hope that you'd get out safely, after 9/11 I think passengers know there might be certain death, so why not fight?)

mixmastamyk 6y ago
It seems you’ve misunderstood the constitution. It limits the government, ensuring our freedom. The govt has no right to prevent us from flying, domestically at least. Other countries are free to make demands at their borders.
- thephyber 6y ago
  The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) limit the government. The Articles of the Constitution assign the rights and responsibilities of the government. > The govt has no right to prevent us from flying You have also misunderstood the Constitution. The government does have the right to limit our individual rights either because we have lost them after due process (eg. you have no right to fly if you are serving a prison sentence) or due to national security actions (eg. you have no right to fly if the country grounds all flights like it did immediately after 9/11).
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    Inalienable rights cannot be taken away by governments, which don't have rights. That there are temporary exceptions for prisons and emergencies is inconsequential to this thread.
option 6y ago

qubex 6y ago

I seriously doubt that a lot of the “such-and-such mean that the terrorists won” would score very highly on the actual terrorist’s criteria for success... they seriously desired to destroy the West and institute a theocratic Caliphate in the Middle East, and that hasn’t occurred. This is just infra-Western rumination.