RE: Katrina Timeline and Libertarian issues

[Lowell C. Savage]

Greetings again, Travis.   Insisting on preserving rights like the right to privacy at all costs and in all situations is suicide, politically and societally.  It is societal because any society that held privacy rights inviolate in all circumstances would be destroyed by criminals, terrorists and thugs.  The police and courts would be unable to complete investigations and so the guilty would go free—to continue looting, robbing, killing and terrorizing until the society fell apart or changed.  And it’s suicide politically, because the vast majority of people understand that and aren’t going anywhere near it.  That’s the sort of thing that makes libertarians appear to be the “kook fringe.”    I don’t know what part (if any) Franklin played in writing or supporting the Bill of Rights.  I could be wrong, but I somehow doubt that he thought that the 4th Amendments exceptions to the prohibitions on searches and seizures were infringements of “essential liberties” that we wouldn’t deserve if we gave them up for safety.  (Note by the way, ol’ Ben’s original statement “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  Some people don’t seem to notice that “essential” part—an acknowledgement that there are some liberties that may not be “essential”.  (Also, I think he was actually quoting someone else.)  See: “http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm”)   You are correct that it is the Government’s job to protect our liberties.  That would seem to include the liberties of ALL—including the innocent.  That’s why I said that I thought the folks who worte the 4th Amendment did a pretty good job of coming up with a balance.   It also appears (from Tim’s description) that the Babylon 5 episode more-or-less followed something like that balance—although perhaps on a different issue.  Apparently a leader had to choose between allowing millions (or billions?) of people to die, or following the law.  He chose to save the people.  The description from Tim doesn’t seem to indicate that there were any laws broken or privacy (or other) rights of the “Vorlons” that were violated.  However, there probably was some proscription against (or at least reason for reluctance) to calling on the “first ones”.  Otherwise, I’m not quite sure how it would apply to this discussion.   Lowell C. Savage It’s the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants’ tool, fools’ folly.     From: Travis Pahl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:09 PM To: Liberty Northwest Conference &amp, Newsgroup Subject: Re: Katrina Timeline and Libertarian issues   On 9/15/05, Tim Bedding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lowell > Y' know.  It's rather interesting that the folks that wrote the > US Constitution already thought about that "balance" between > privacy and safety and wrote it into our 4th Amendment. I do not know how familiar you are with Babylon 5 but in season 4 of that sci-fi show, John Sheridan felt obliged to call in the "first ones", very powerful alien beings, to tackle a Vorlon planetkiller. The Vorlons had decided to destroy settlements and planets aligned to an opposing ideology. What has this to do with terrorists? Well, the Vorlons were acting as ideological terrorists like Al Quaeda. Sheridan was not willing to let billions die on Coriana 6 simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, he applied force. The intelligence services are another kind of weapon and one that can be applied to attempt to avoid a terrorist attack. The Libertarian page I mentioned did not give a pragmatic reason for opposition to covert surveillance. It spoke in terms of rights. Protecting citizens rights IS THE SOLE REASON for a government to exist.  So when a statement is speaking in temrs of rights it is speaking pragmatically.     Here is a quote   The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak   or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. Suppose we rephrase it to include the downside   The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak   or not to speak should not be infringed by the government,   no matter how many lives might be lost in a future terrorist   attack which could have been prevented. Once again you are assuming that if we infringe on peoples rights we become safer.  That is not the case.     People might see the second, clearer statement of the Libertarian position as less appealing and might favour Sheridan-style intervention over appeals to the rights of ancients. I am sure they would find it less appealing.  You have worded it in a way that makes it sound like you have a choice between your rights or life.  That is a false choice.  Ben Franklin put it clearer when he stated that those that give up their rights in the name of security deserve niether rights nor security.  He had a good understanding that it is our rights that protect us (yes even from terrorists). Travis     Regards Tim Babylon 5 - Intersections in Real Time William: You must understand. He was expendable from the   moment he arrived. We are all expendable, just parts in   a machine. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw

_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw