4 ms·

Well...its always going to be easy to say the leadership is stupid and backdoors are a horrible idea. What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston

by Sven7 11y ago

Well...its always going to be easy to say the leadership is stupid and backdoors are a horrible idea. What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber. No good answers to that, which is why we see all kinds of partial solutions, with all their well known consequences getting deployed.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Yes. It's hard. But asking such questions without context is bullshit. We've had bombings and mass murders throughout our country's history. Hell, the country was founded on a tax revolt that ended up in a civil war (a huge chunk of folks weren't exactly happy with breaking with England) So when I look at all that bloodshed and lives lost, I really have to ask myself if a 9-11 every day wouldn't be better than giving up the freedom to be secure in our persons and papers that all of those folks in times past died for. So yes, there exists danger to the population for which a decrease in our way of life is not warranted. People will die. There will be much media coverage and yelling. But the real question isn't about the loss of life. The real question is whether or not a system of government that is designed around free and informed people electing representatives can survive a sustained attack built around getting people angry and afraid. You got me on that one. Perhaps single, 6 or 8-year presidential terms. Required rotation of the HoR with a 2 or 3 term limit? Going back to electing senators from state legislatures? Whatever the solution, it's going to involve a longer feedback loop between outrage and people voting. We also desperately need some group of people representing the system itself instead of the voters. That used to be the senate.
mcphage 11y ago
> What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber. Not only how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber—that's relatively simple. What's hard is stopping the next Boston marathon bomber without doing more damage to our country than the next Boston marathon bomber would do. And that's hard, because despite the loss of life, the Boston Marathon bomber didn't actually do much damage to our country.

by Sven7 11y ago

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

Yes. It's hard. But asking such questions without context is bullshit. We've had bombings and mass murders throughout our country's history. Hell, the country was founded on a tax revolt that ended up in a civil war (a huge chunk of folks weren't exactly happy with breaking with England) So when I look at all that bloodshed and lives lost, I really have to ask myself if a 9-11 every day wouldn't be better than giving up the freedom to be secure in our persons and papers that all of those folks in times past died for. So yes, there exists danger to the population for which a decrease in our way of life is not warranted. People will die. There will be much media coverage and yelling. But the real question isn't about the loss of life. The real question is whether or not a system of government that is designed around free and informed people electing representatives can survive a sustained attack built around getting people angry and afraid. You got me on that one. Perhaps single, 6 or 8-year presidential terms. Required rotation of the HoR with a 2 or 3 term limit? Going back to electing senators from state legislatures? Whatever the solution, it's going to involve a longer feedback loop between outrage and people voting. We also desperately need some group of people representing the system itself instead of the voters. That used to be the senate.

mcphage 11y ago

> What's hard to answer is how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber. Not only how do you stop the next Boston marathon bomber—that's relatively simple. What's hard is stopping the next Boston marathon bomber without doing more damage to our country than the next Boston marathon bomber would do. And that's hard, because despite the loss of life, the Boston Marathon bomber didn't actually do much damage to our country.