Greetings again, Travis.
Look. I’m all for the
government respecting rights. Why don’t you give up that straw man
argument that says I don’t? Your post below made me think that
perhaps Franklin
was talking about the Bill of Rights. Turns out we’re both
wrong. It probably wasn’t ol’ Ben who said it in the first
place. And here’s the original quote: “Those who would give
up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
(Capitalization as in the original.) See http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605
for the full context. BTW. That was written when he was still a Loyal
Subject of the Crown (like Tim Bedding still is J. Sorry Tim, couldn’t
resist.).
So Travis. Is it your position that
if I can lure you into my home and kill you, then the police and judicial
system will have to convict me of your murder without the ability to search my
home for evidence? Are you saying that their current ability (under the
current US constitution) to conduct a search of my home after they have
obtained a warrant that meets the criteria spelled out in the 4th Amendment,
is a “sellout” of an “Essential Liberty”?
Now, certainly, if the government “ignores”
the right to privacy, then there is trouble. But I don’t see how
you can equate “ignoring” privacy with the exceptions in the 4th
Amendment.
And you are correct that “support of
individual rights does not make libertarians appear to be the ‘kook
fringe’”. But supporting those rights in extreme
circumstances when they conflict with the rights of others does.
Lowell C. Savage
It’s the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants’ tool, fools’
folly.
Travis Pahl wrote, in part:
On 9/15/05, Lowell C. Savage
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
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.
That is what you claim. Yet the real world shows us that the more rights
governments respect the safer its people are. Do you have any
evidence to suggest otherwise?
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.
Or until they gathered enough evidence to convict. You do
understand that a right to privacy does not mean that people will not talk to
others especially when it is to help get a killer off the street. It does
not mean that people will not live a large portion of their lives in the public
where police and others would observe things.
You are also ignoring the fact that as government begins to ignore peoples
right to privacy you also will see more looting robbinb killing and terrorizing
from the government. power corrupts.
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."
If the vast majority of people realize that their letting the
government in on their personal lives makes them safer then there is no need to
grant the government the right to invade your privacy.
And a support of individual rights does not make libertarians appear to
be the 'kook fringe'. It is what makes them different from all other
political parties.
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.
Actually that is exactly
what he meant. He did not think that giving up personal liberty made
people safer.
(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.
You do not protect something by violating it.
Travis Pahl
