3 ms·

Sorry, let me clarify, the government has the responsibility to protect me from things that I have no control over, like a foreign invasion, terrorist attacks,

by dm2 12y ago

Sorry, let me clarify, the government has the responsibility to protect me from things that I have no control over, like a foreign invasion, terrorist attacks, and other citizens (and government agencies) obstructing my rights. Makes perfect sense to me, do you still think that they are mutually exclusive statements?

swombat 12y ago
If it's about decreasing the chances of dying because of the actions of someone else at all costs (economic, personal, etc) - then the first thing the government should do is ban cars for the vast swathes of the population that don't strictly require a car (i.e. live next to a big city). That's 40'000 easily avoidable deaths each year - all they take is some inconvenience from everyone and a bit of investment in public transport infrastructure, in exchange for a dozen 9/11's worth of terrorism avoided every single year. As a bonus, the US's oil consumption would plummet and it would almost instantly achieve any environmental targets it can dream of. What's that - you still want the freedom to drive? Even though it involves a fairly significant (0.01%) risk of dying because of things not under your control? Well, some people want the freedom to not be monitored all the time, even though it involves a much smaller than 0.01% risk of dying because of a terrorist attack. And all people should, and would, if terrorism didn't capture the imagination so vividly.
- dm2 12y ago
  If we can get the US government to divert 75% of the money spent towards terrorism prevention towards autonomous vehicle research and electric vehicle subsidizing, then let's do it. Maybe you're right, maybe we're both partially correct, it's a complicated issue and I do appreciate the discussion.
gknoy 12y ago
It's a cost/benefit analysis, though. The benefits are miniscule: you protect fewer people than die every year due to drunk driving or many other causes, and at a cost that harms us all.
sp332 12y ago
What if I want the freedom to communicate privately? Ok, we'll only spy on the terrorists. But how do we know you're not a terrorist? We'll have to read your email before determining whether we can read your email or not...

by dm2 12y ago

swombat 12y ago

If it's about decreasing the chances of dying because of the actions of someone else at all costs (economic, personal, etc) - then the first thing the government should do is ban cars for the vast swathes of the population that don't strictly require a car (i.e. live next to a big city). That's 40'000 easily avoidable deaths each year - all they take is some inconvenience from everyone and a bit of investment in public transport infrastructure, in exchange for a dozen 9/11's worth of terrorism avoided every single year. As a bonus, the US's oil consumption would plummet and it would almost instantly achieve any environmental targets it can dream of. What's that - you still want the freedom to drive? Even though it involves a fairly significant (0.01%) risk of dying because of things not under your control? Well, some people want the freedom to not be monitored all the time, even though it involves a much smaller than 0.01% risk of dying because of a terrorist attack. And all people should, and would, if terrorism didn't capture the imagination so vividly.

dm2 12y ago
If we can get the US government to divert 75% of the money spent towards terrorism prevention towards autonomous vehicle research and electric vehicle subsidizing, then let's do it. Maybe you're right, maybe we're both partially correct, it's a complicated issue and I do appreciate the discussion.

gknoy 12y ago

It's a cost/benefit analysis, though. The benefits are miniscule: you protect fewer people than die every year due to drunk driving or many other causes, and at a cost that harms us all.

sp332 12y ago

What if I want the freedom to communicate privately? Ok, we'll only spy on the terrorists. But how do we know you're not a terrorist? We'll have to read your email before determining whether we can read your email or not...