I was listening to an NPR program today where they were discussing individual vs social rights. At one point, the commentator, I believe it was former Carter administration fellow Brezhinski, was talking about social rights. In essence, we legislate rights on the use of arms for the social good. Hence, we cannot randomly shoot someone. OK. I can buy that. Then he talks about further social rights restrictions such as seat belt laws. The idea is that society needs us as functioning human beings, healthy, and all of that, so laws are passed to protect our well being; hence, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, child seat laws, etc. This is where it gets a bit fuzzy to me. How much further of a step is it to: smoking bans to protect the "social" health, bans on drinking (we already have drugs) for the same reason, bans on eating certain foods, bans on driving certain vehicles, bans on motorized devices for sport ... you see where I am going. This is a fine line and I think we must always remain vigilant to make sure we do not give away too much. I am already of the mind that we give away too much in the name of national security. That is why I refuse to give over to the government all of these personal documents that they want to, perhaps, take my name off the "no fly" list.
I would love to discuss this one with my sons ... it is always good to get the opinion of young peole on such issues. At the end of the day, I don't want to abandon quite so many of my rights.l
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think the line has been crossed, erased, and redrawn all in front of our eyes, and we all stood around and watched it happen because "they're" out to get us and we need someone to do something for us so we don't have to bother with it.
We have a bunch of "officials" put on committees or new agencies created after events such as terrorist activities. It starts out well, but somewhere along the way, the officials start reading reports by academics or military officials or what not, and then the officals decide the need more power so that what COULD happen can be prevented. So they keep pushing the line because something MIGHT happen, and they gain more power because they justify the need by spreading fear of what MIGHT happen. Of course they will protect you if you just allow them to ____ .
As a result, we get things like the no-fly list you mentioned. We also have warrant-less wire-tapping, snooping on international telephone and e-mail communiques, detention without access to a lawyer or court if deemed an enemy of the state, and so on.
To protect all of us, now if you buy a home chemistry lab kit, a model rocket kit, a book on rocket science, or even just a work of fiction written in Arabic, you are put on a list and your life is secretly investigated. God help you if someone witnesses you working in your garage soldering together some electronics--you'll probably have the FBI smashing through the garage door in minutes and they'll take EVERYTHING away as evidence.
Apparently Americans should only work on cars.
If you discover a flaw in electronic voting machines (Diebold), the subway token system (Boston MTA), or a telecom component's firmware (Cisco) and share your discovery, you've just become a public enemy because "they" could use your discovery to hurt us. Nevermind holding technology companies responsible for skimping on design for security and robustness so that the company can enjoy great profits. Oh snap! I completely forgot, we only have to hold China responsible for their private sector!
And I'd probably be branded a hippie-liberal by the conservatives, but I've always though that the public officials have no business telling homosexuals that they cannot be married. Marriage is an institution of culture (and in some cases religion) and it is so odd that the US and many other countries feel that the government should regulate marriage. Two homosexuals being married has absolutely no effect on anyone else. Well...maybe the IRS and their tax rules, but that is it.
So perhaps all of that will get some discussion started? :-)
Two non-connected comments: first, as a conservative, I share your opinions regarding marriage. So, you are not a hippie liberal, although I can pretty much figure that you are more liberal that I. Marriage is a strange institution in that it predates modern law. It is odd in that it unites two people in a religious ceremony but also conveys property rights and, more recently, social rights (tax law, etc). So it is the ultimate combination of religion and secular society and serves to demonstrate the issues when the two collide.
The second thought ... your examples seem to be focused on what our government would describe as security issues. I submit that it goes much farther. Your model is dead on ... we legislate the following in order to prevent something. You cannot sell soft drinks and snacks in school because "we" (Govt Inc) want to protect you from obesity and diabetes. You cannot drive a gas guzzler because it consumes precious resources and contaminates the environment more than "we" think "we" should allow. You cannot use trans fat oils to cook because "we" think it is bad for your health and will drive up health-related costs. You get the picture. The assault is on all fronts. Our freedom is rapidly becoming state run or at least state influenced behavior modification. Where does it end?
Regarding the marriage issue, I think the big problem is that no one seems to have an issue with the tax and property legal issues with homosexual marriage. The big issue seems to be that conservative religious types are "offended" by it. And honestly that worries me just as much as government intrusion into our lives. If conservative Christians are offended by homosexual marriage then they ought consider moving out of a secular nation. Perhaps Sauda Arabia is right up their alley?
On the second issue, I agree with your partly. Regarding transfats, I think that we as a people need to have the will-power to avoid it. After all, we don't have to buy cookies at the grocery store. The government need not protect us. If we read the news and the studies that prove the substance is bad, we should stay away at our own will. The problem is that most people don't pay attention to the news. Instead America watches COPS and Temptation Island instead of reading the paper or watching the news, and they leave it to the lawyers in the US will look out for the public. And lets not forget the news industry is in the business of creating "shock and awe" stories to keep their ratings higher whether the facts have been checked or not. After all, one only needs to do a retraction days later after the story dies down--no one will hold it against you. So the government kind of has to step in there and try to balance it all, and I can understand how they see the best way to remedy it is just to ban the substance. I don't know how we'd fix this issue.
As for the petroleum issue, no one can prove global warming and no one can disprove it. At least not in our day. However, driving a vehicle MAY have an effect on others, and that is much different from food consumption that affects each individual. Regulating vehicle efficiency is not such a bad thing. We can still drive a car if we want to--it just has to meet admission standards that the country has decided. If we don't want to drive a car, we can use alternatives. And from what I've seen, the government only regulates its policy on new vehicles. If you bought a vehicle before a regulation, you are generally exempt. That is how it should be.
I submitted another comment adding something, but it hasn't shown up. I suppose it was flagged as spam by the filter?
It looks like someone in congress has a brain! (Rep. Loretta Sanchez)
Accountability for DHS laptop retention at borders
Post a Comment