4 ms·
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Quite simply, the freedom of hundreds of millions is worth a few terrorist attacks that kill a few dozens.
by swombat 13y ago
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Quite simply, the freedom of hundreds of millions is worth a few terrorist attacks that kill a few dozens.
If not, then you should definitely ban cars, as they kill a whopping 33k people a year.
In other words, the balance is: let people die free rather than live unfree.
- deelowe 13y agoExactly. This is the cost of being a free society. You can not and should not rely on the government to sacrifice liberty in the name of security. Security is first and foremost a responsibility of the people. The role of a government of a free society(regarding security) is to enable it's populous to defend itself, not necessarily do it for them. This is why the second amendment refers to a "militia" instead of a government ran military. Unfortunately, America has truly lost it's way and I don't know if things can be fixed at this point. No matter what the reasoning or circumstances surrounding it, does this look like the image of a free society ran by the people: http://static1.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/1900-1/photos/1366383512-police-raid-watertown-houses-for-final-suspect-in-boston-bombing_1973421.jpg http://static1.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_... "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
- daughart 13y agoI honestly fail to see how monitoring telecommunication metadata is an infringement of rights. The government has not stopped you from taking any action. I agree that it COULD be used for evil, but that's not a very convincing argument. Many technologies we enjoy and rely on enable evil acts.
- swombat 13y agoYou merely have a failure of imagination. Try reading some books, like 1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World, for your education.
- daughart 13y agoThese books don't tell me how the government analyzing communication metadata is an infringement of rights. "Imagine a world where the government assigns you a number when you are born. Where you have to register with the government when you turn 18. Where each year you must report detailed financial information to the government. It's like 1984!"
- swombat 13y agoRead this, then: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/caeb3pl?context=3 http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deelowe 13y agoI guess you missed the recent news where a governor was exposed for cheating on his wife due to data collected using these systems? Or, what about the case of qwest where the CEO was coincidentally convicted of insider trading after refusing to comply with this BS? I have no issue with the government doing analysis and collecting data. I do take issue with them using it for BS political agendas and illegally compelling private companies to participate. And, to be honest, the mere fact that they are allowed to collect this sort of stuff will lead to the other. So, I think it's perfectly reasonable to simply require more transparency and approval in the first place to remove the temptation.