Welcome to Gaia! ::

In the course of time, again and again will arise the question of security or personal freedom being more important.

Discuss: Where is the best balance in your opinion, and what is your opinion on the new laws put into place in the interest of "Homeland security"?

I personally think that if you are willing to give up your freedom for percieved security, you didn't deserve it in the first place.

Okay, getting hassled at the airport is costing taxpayers money, but what is it really accomplishing?
Taking weapons off the market?
Allowing intelligence agencies to monitor you?
Permitting police agencies to break into your house unannounced due to "possible terrorist connections", then sending you to prison for your 80GB of illegal Mp3s?
*cough*
Actually, that last one, I kinda just threw in there sweatdrop

Where I was going exactly has left me already, but the point is that if the government really wantd to crack down on terrorism or whatever, they could really be doing a much better job of it...

What's happening now seems to me to just be the restricting of the freedoms we have left, and causing a good ol' fashion cold war type panic.
In my opinion, of course, always room for being wrong.

First I must point out that freedom and liberty are two different things, Webster's having freedom as, among other things "a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"
while Liberty is "2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits", again, picking my favorite definition...

What I mean to say is that some order is needed, naturally, but that the restriction of our liberties isn't my piece of cake.
I mean, you have the freedom to go and kill someone, it's true, but the legal system thinks poorly on that, so you get locked up or deathified for it(assuming you're caught), and I see this as good, or at least better than lawlessness and anarchy.

I do however, believe that all men(using the term loosly xp ) have certain inalienable rights that should not be incroached upon, the right to bear arms, the right to travel, ownership of self, ect.

I think the government should protect our rights and liberties, not remove/restrict them. That said, I'm meh about politics, uncaring for the skullduggery of finding the "lesser evil". Truly those most suited for the arena of politics are generally the least qualified.

I'd agree with Xeon on this one.

However, I also think that the idea of pure and unfettered freedom(Xeon wasn't talking about this, but some people do) is nothing more than a dangerous myth. You have to have SOME restrictions on your behavior lest you seriously encroach on other people's personal freedoms. So there is a very small amount of freedom you have to trade for security, namely that you're freedom to do whatever you want is restricted in return for your right to property being protected by other people being convicted if they threaten your liberties. If that makes any sense.

That being said, I think the Department of Homeland Security is doing a decent job so far, despite the fact that it's yet ANOTHER branch that serves to bloat up the government some more. I, for one, don't think my right to privacy is being invaded by the department any more than the local grocery store, and for a much better reason than cheaper products. wink

I believe that if everyone was required to own and know how to use an automatic weapon and had a bazooka under the bed, not only would there be almost no violent crime, they would be in little danger of invasion... sweatdrop

*cough*

that is to say...

I'd sign on to that, if I didn't have to worry about those "trigger-happy" people out there who would have no problem shooting someone and then claiming it was in self-defense.

I think most people would agree that liberty is more important than governmentalized security. However, if you're going to apply this to the United States, there are a number of factors that have to be taken in. For example, the way security is implemented is a vital factor. Our criminal justice system is atrocious, because of the definition of crime as seen by our government. Crime is, in the eyes of our government, almost exclusively committed by poor people. I believe that this is because the governmental officers are almost exclusively rich. Governmentalized security could be a good thing, but not with a government run the way ours is. The government would have to be balanced, and ours is far from balanaced. Also, the issue of Homeland Security comes up. It seems to me, not only is our government rich, they have an extremely skewed system of priorities when it comes to security. For example, I've been told by airline officials that you can't take a lighter on a plane because you might light a bomb with it. Wouldn't it just make more sense to ensure the complete lack of bombs on planes? Also, people have been able to get onto planes with items that compromise security a hell of a lot more than a lighter could. One man boarded a plane 47 times with various deadly weapons without being caught. He concealed most of them on the inside of his leg. He was able to get in a large machete multiple times, and trust me, that can do a hell of a lot more damage to a stewardess than a Zippo. Also, the government fails to recognize that just trying to keep threats out is a horrible attitude. For example, an expert in the martial arts could quite easily take over a plane. Most, if not all, would not do this, because martial arts often have a core of morality. However, it is still a wide-open possibility. Do you really think that a metal detector is going to scan for martial ability? Of course not. Therefore, the entire attitude of the security system would need to be altered, were we to have a proper security. What we need is a reason for people to not want to hijack our planes or terrorize our people. The only way to gain this that I am aware of is a sense of respect for our country and our people. Of course, we'd have to keep regular security measures to protect against sociopaths, but it is my firm opinion that if we were respected, terrorism against our country would vanish almost entirely. There are many ways to gain respect, but that is another issue altogether. My main point is simply that, while governmentalized security can be a good thing, we're going about it the wrong way, and unless we take a hint and change our ways, we're never going to stop terrorism with metal detectors and warning levels.