The Growing Loss of Personal Freedom

[NaughtyGeek]

I posted this in response to an article on DailyTech about XRay scanners in airports. As with most other privacy related regulations, the typical response tends to be, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why should I care." With the Patriot Act and other laws actually being passed, I wonder why it is that everyone sits idly by and watches while their personal freedoms are whittled away. Soon there will be none. Anyway, read my post and tell me what I'm missing and how wrong I am so that I can perhaps better understand why I spent several years defending a Constitution which means less and less by the day.

Let me start this off by explaining that I am playing devil's advocate and that the following thoughts don't necessarily reflect my own personal beliefs.

Now, let's say for the sake of argument that terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11 and various other recent attacks. How about the governments of several influential nations conspired to carry out attacks to instill a sense of fear in their respective populations.

Following these attacks, the easiest way to quell the public concern is to enact new laws foregoing centuries of precedent. These new policies begin a transition within world governments to track the actions of their citizens with greater ease.

These governments start out targeting high profile groups who have, through previous actions, alienated themselves from the general public. Because of these groups high profile social dissent, the public in general has no problem singling them out for higher levels of scrutiny.

Fast forward a couple decades. Which group is now socially unacceptable? The majority of people don't belong to the "insert your political or religious preference here" group, so the public feels it's OK to single them out as possible threats.

You now find that because you're Jewish, Catholic, Republican, or whatever you're labeled a terrorist and are therefore not granted due process because of your beliefs. They lock you up in a secret prison and throw away the key.

These recent changes are a culmination of previous and current generations view's that "I don't have anything to hide, so it's OK if that right is removed." It's a slippery slope we're on and Big Brother is more prevalent and powerful than most people realize.

 

[yllus]

I actually don't consider the "police state" worries very well founded. There's been some negative push in that area, but as you also may be noticing, the egregious stuff is pushed back by the populace, courts, etc quite strongly. America doesn't rest on its laurels when it comes to such things.

I do see some danger in nannyism rearing its ugly head. We've got people here all too ready and willing to outlaw other's personal freedoms because they've decided they know what's best for that individual and thus feel quite free overriding the own decision-making power. Takes a hell of an ego to assume you know better than your peers...

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: yllus
I actually don't consider the "police state" worries very well founded. There's been some negative push in that area, but as you also may be noticing, the egregious stuff is pushed back by the populace, courts, etc quite strongly. America doesn't rest on its laurels when it comes to such things.

I do see some danger in nannyism rearing its ugly head. We've got people here all too ready and willing to outlaw other's personal freedoms because they've decided they know what's best for that individual and thus feel quite free overriding the own decision-making power. Takes a hell of an ego to assume you know better than your peers...

Typically, as least on here, the people that bash the Rebublicans and the Bush admin for compromising rights the hardest are only too happy to do the same thing just on different issues. The argument is that since it is for your own good or the good of your neighbor you should have no objection. If you still argue further you must hate poor people/children/the uneducated/puppies/*insert random appeal to emotion here*. Other arguments may include "not a protected right" (lol...sound familiar?), "you don't really need that anyway", and insults commonly found in most 2nd grade classrooms.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: yllus
I actually don't consider the "police state" worries very well founded. There's been some negative push in that area, but as you also may be noticing, the egregious stuff is pushed back by the populace, courts, etc quite strongly. America doesn't rest on its laurels when it comes to such things.

I do see some danger in nannyism rearing its ugly head. We've got people here all too ready and willing to outlaw other's personal freedoms because they've decided they know what's best for that individual and thus feel quite free overriding the own decision-making power. Takes a hell of an ego to assume you know better than your peers...

Typically, as least on here, the people that bash the Rebublicans and the Bush admin for compromising rights the hardest are only too happy to do the same thing just on different issues. The argument is that since it is for your own good or the good of your neighbor you should have no objection. If you still argue further you must hate poor people/children/the uneducated/puppies/*insert random appeal to emotion here*. Other arguments may include "not a protected right" (lol...sound familiar?), "you don't really need that anyway", and insults commonly found in most 2nd grade classrooms.

And that's the danger...while we seem to disagree on WHAT particular rights we should do without, everyone seems to agree on the fundamental principle that the government has a responsibility to take away your freedoms for your own good. The particular views are different, but the fundamental idea behind both sides is remarkably the same. Rare is the person who finds both the right AND the left a little too nannystatish. What percentage of the American population do you think is against gun control AND warrantless wiretapping? I'd wager it's a pretty small number...

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: yllus
I actually don't consider the "police state" worries very well founded.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Our government must come down and be shrunk before Dems and Reps finish handing themselves complete authoritarian dictatorship.

I don?t trust them, with a growing central government comes the ability to do many evil things, no matter how good the intentions originally are. Anyone who joins me in wanting the patriot act removed can understand this dilemma.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yllus
I actually don't consider the "police state" worries very well founded. There's been some negative push in that area, but as you also may be noticing, the egregious stuff is pushed back by the populace, courts, etc quite strongly. America doesn't rest on its laurels when it comes to such things.

I do see some danger in nannyism rearing its ugly head. We've got people here all too ready and willing to outlaw other's personal freedoms because they've decided they know what's best for that individual and thus feel quite free overriding the own decision-making power. Takes a hell of an ego to assume you know better than your peers...

It becomes more clear IMO when you realize that Bush is a nanny stater. It's just 2 different approaches to the same end -- saving you, from you.

 

[Wheezer]

I think the real problem with this whole "these new airport scanners are an invason of privacy" really translates to a bunch of insecure men afraid someone is going to see how small thier wangs are.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: yllus
I actually don't consider the "police state" worries very well founded.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Our government must come down and be shrunk before Dems and Reps finish handing themselves complete authoritarian dictatorship.

I don?t trust them, with a growing central government comes the ability to do many evil things, no matter how good the intentions originally are. Anyone who joins me in wanting the patriot act removed can understand this dilemma.

I tend to take the pragmatic approach and fight the worst of the current evils one at a time. Today to me, that's the nanny state advocates. Back when Clinton was in charge and it was the Repubs going nuts, I was on the other side fighting off the conservative craziness. Fighting one battle at a time seems to work best.

Originally posted by: Vic
It becomes more clear IMO when you realize that Bush is a nanny stater. It's just 2 different approaches to the same end -- saving you, from you.

I know that, you know that, and a select few others know that. But this is why you get called a hopeless idealogue 'round these parts - you're breaking the precious, fragile identities these people have carved out for themselves. Are you telling Steeplerot that he and his hated enemy President Bush are in fact one and the same? Fat chance of getting him or others of his like to recognize that this century.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
I think the real problem with this whole "these new airport scanners are an invason of privacy" really translates to a bunch of insecure men afraid someone is going to see how small thier wangs are.

*I* think the real problem is that folks like you think there has to be some OTHER reason for people to not like getting anal probed by the TSA every time they fly other than the obvious reason. It seems self-evident that there is something wrong with pawing through the belongings of innocent people, confiscating their yogurt and patting down people at random, much less x-raying their junk. I tend to object to having x-rays beamed at my nuts for health reasons alone, but I find it rather worrying that you guys don't think the privacy concerns are "real", that there must be some ulterior motive to oppose bullshit like this. Clearly valuing privacy for privacy's sake is a dead idea among too many people in this country.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yllus
I actually don't consider the "police state" worries very well founded. There's been some negative push in that area, but as you also may be noticing, the egregious stuff is pushed back by the populace, courts, etc quite strongly. America doesn't rest on its laurels when it comes to such things.

I do see some danger in nannyism rearing its ugly head.

We've got people here all too ready and willing to outlaw other's personal freedoms because they've decided they know what's best for that individual and thus feel quite free overriding the own decision-making power.

Takes a hell of an ego to assume you know better than your peers...

BFT

 

[LegendKiller]

Personal freedoms are being erroded on several fronts.


Wire taping, unfettered bank and personal accounts investigations...etc. Much of this is going on without oversight. Many say that it's been done in the past, but so have other civil rights violations, which have been corrected. Just because it happened in the past doesn't mean it should happen now or in the future. Oversight is needed to ensure we have protection against an out of control government. This means strong state rights, strong judicial, and reduced power of the executive.

Airports. The whole screening thing is crap. I went through Dulles and had my boarding pass checked SIX times before I even got to the checkpoint ("papers comrade). Then, because the screws in my knee beeped, I was practically strip searched. Don't forget the .5oz container of medicine my wife forgot to put in the clear bag. We all know that .5oz of liquid = explosive. They treated her like a terrorist. She is 6' blond hair blue eyes. I am 6' 2" same. It's stupid.

The liquid explosive thing is a joke. Not only was it not feasible, but it wasn't a plan that was going to bear fruit. Most chemists agree with that. It's just another mechanism for people to cower and quake in their boots at the thought of a big bad ole terrorist invading their space.

I really think Americans have become a bunch of cowards that are easily manipulated and hide under their bed at the first thought of being hurt. 3,000 people died on 9/11 and as a result we went rampaging around the world, ignoring our own values, rights, and morals, while claiming we were at war. We have killed anywhere between 50,000 to 200k+ civilian innocents through our actions (they wouldn't have died if we didn't do what we did in the first place, or at least not nearly as many), all because 3,000 people died. We suddenly had a panic attack and rampaged around like a gorilla on crack.

Meanwhile, we clamor for more security, saying that the government will protect us. Do they even have an interest in protecting us? Not really, they have an interest in getting more power.

All of this begs the question, if 1776 had to happen again could we overthrow our government? If Bush declared himself President for a 3rd term and did so utilizing the military, could we, as a people who are democratic and freedom loving, overthrow him? Could we organize a Continental Congress, or declare independance from a authoritarian government?

Not anymore. We have given up too many rights. Phone conversations would be taped, conspiritors against the government found and labled terrorists while being thrown in secret prisons. We would be utterly crushed by our own army, as the National Guard is nothing more than a vassal of the executive now, the state has no right or ability to raise and control it's own militia. Our wealth is suborned by our masters in taxes while we freely give them a blank check to mortgage our future.

We are now no more than cattle seeking a barn from a spring rain sprinkle. Hearded by our masters, prodded with electrical poles, and slaughtered for our wealth and ability to be meat shields and cannon fodder.

We no longer control the government, the government controls us.

 

[Vic]

Good post, LK.

Personally, I think the liquid explosive scare was a hoax to try to get alcohol off the planes. It seems that's the only change that actually stuck.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic
Good post, LK.

Personally, I think the liquid explosive scare was a hoax to try to get alcohol off the planes. It seems that's the only change that actually stuck.

Alcohol as in people carrying it on and consuming? I can see that, the airlines have a history of underhanded manuevers to make their product the only product in the skies. Look at the history of cell phones and the BS concerning safety they used as justification to get the FAA to ban them. While in parallel introducing their own cell phone on the planes they can charge ridiculous rates to use.

btw the FAA has known for a decade cell phones dont cause any harm to planes. They ran several tests with Boeing with a 737 and hit the thing with cell phone frequencies much stronger than you will ever see and it had zero effect. But did that allow for cell phones to be used on planes? Nope! Had to continue the revenues from their own cell phone service.

btw the whole liquid explosive thing baffled me. I remember as a kid people making bleach bombs. If they were really that worried it should have been restricted in 2001.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Good post, LK.

Personally, I think the liquid explosive scare was a hoax to try to get alcohol off the planes. It seems that's the only change that actually stuck.

Alcohol as in people carrying it on and consuming? I can see that, the airlines have a history of underhanded manuevers to make their product the only product in the skies. Look at the history of cell phones and the BS concerning safety they used as justification to get the FAA to ban them. While in parallel introducing their own cell phone on the planes they can charge ridiculous rates to use.

btw the FAA has known for a decade cell phones dont cause any harm to planes. They ran several tests with Boeing with a 737 and hit the thing with cell phone frequencies much stronger than you will ever see and it had zero effect. But did that allow for cell phones to be used on planes? Nope! Had to continue the revenues from their own cell phone service.

btw the whole liquid explosive thing baffled me. I remember as a kid people making bleach bombs. If they were really that worried it should have been restricted in 2001.

Good points. I wonder if the airlines get a cut of the revenue that comes in from airport services, such as the "Hudson news" and such in the airports. COnsidering you can't bring anything in now I am sure the revenues of in-terminal stores and eateries has dramatically increased.

The whole cell thing is idiotic, although I don't like the thought of some moron talking loud into his phone on the plane.

I never made any explosives. Could you have carried enough onto a plane without it being too conspicuous during building to make it a feasible weapon?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Good post, LK.

Personally, I think the liquid explosive scare was a hoax to try to get alcohol off the planes. It seems that's the only change that actually stuck.

Alcohol as in people carrying it on and consuming? I can see that, the airlines have a history of underhanded manuevers to make their product the only product in the skies. Look at the history of cell phones and the BS concerning safety they used as justification to get the FAA to ban them. While in parallel introducing their own cell phone on the planes they can charge ridiculous rates to use.

btw the FAA has known for a decade cell phones dont cause any harm to planes. They ran several tests with Boeing with a 737 and hit the thing with cell phone frequencies much stronger than you will ever see and it had zero effect. But did that allow for cell phones to be used on planes? Nope! Had to continue the revenues from their own cell phone service.

btw the whole liquid explosive thing baffled me. I remember as a kid people making bleach bombs. If they were really that worried it should have been restricted in 2001.

Good points. I wonder if the airlines get a cut of the revenue that comes in from airport services, such as the "Hudson news" and such in the airports. COnsidering you can't bring anything in now I am sure the revenues of in-terminal stores and eateries has dramatically increased.

The whole cell thing is idiotic, although I don't like the thought of some moron talking loud into his phone on the plane.

I never made any explosives. Could you have carried enough onto a plane without it being too conspicuous during building to make it a feasible weapon?

I was thinking more along the lines of people sneaking a drink instead of buying the shot bottles from the airlines. Good point on the eateries and bars in the airport. I dont have any idea who owns them or if the airlines get a cut of the revenues.

As for the bomb, no idea, I just remember some of more crazy friends making them. I dont know how explosive they are but I believe you can get a reaction with something the size of a typical tall glass.

I think the combination of bleach, aluminum, and some other chemical. Combine it in a jar with a top, shake it up and the chemicals start reacting and it eventually blows up or starts on fire from the heat. I never wanted to get involved with that crap because with my luck, I am the one ahole who blows his hands and feet off while burning his face off.