The ole' liberty vs security debate

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by eric/, Jan 25, 2013.

  1. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #1
    Recently came across this article about a guy who stripped at the airport to protest nude scanners.

    Here's the summary:

    I agree with this wholly. And in the dissent it's mentioned that it inconvenienced other passengers. That's the whole point of a protest! What good is protesting if you're regulated out to some corner or box where nobody can see your message or hear your voice?

    Do you agree with this ruling and Benjamin Franklin's position? Why or why not?
     
  2. macrumors 68030

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #2
    I think liberty vs security is a very complicated issue. Without some restriction on liberty there would be no way to catch many criminals. But the only way to ensure total security would be to strip people of any and all freedom. A delicate balance must be struck.


    Now as someone who opposes laws against public nudity, the funny thing is I'd support this guy either way...
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    No.

    I believe that Ben Franklin's statement has been overused by those who have a hard time thinking through complex issues and instead rely on trite platitudes.
     
  4. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #4
    There is a difference between giving up a little freedom for our safety and being raped by the TSA. Airport security is nothing more than legal groping and called a safety measure.
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #5
    The irony is that the 9/11 hijackers succeeded not because they had cutting devices but because airline passengers had been advised up to that time not to resist hijackers because, um, the hijackers might then hurt them. Now, if they allowed sharp things on the plane, it would not be a real problem unless half the passengers were part of the take-over plot: now that the horse is gone, we take comfort in the fact that the barn is securely locked.
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #6
    Trite platitudes huh? I wish my vocabulary was this good. Does it come with age?
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    Here's an interesting and relatively brief article on Ben Franklin's often mis-used quote.

    I've provided some excerpts below ...

     
  8. thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #8
    That's pretty interesting. Though I think now its at the point where commonly it's just accepted at face value, but I think that the meaning and sentiment behind it, even if misattributed is still very powerful. Giving up liberty for security. And I think airport scanners are a good example.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    You believe a misrepresentation is now a powerful message?

     
  10. thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #10
    This one is

    It doesn't really matter that Benjamin Franklin said it or not, or he intended it that way or not, because it's had a profound influence on our society. Liberty for security and vice versa.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #11
    So you just want free access to airplanes with no security measures at all? Or are you just averse to the scanners?
     
  12. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #12
    I don't get this stance. Security measure are necessary for air travel.

    No one forces one to take a plane. You can drive anywhere in the US if you wanted to where no security measures are taken
     
  13. thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    that's a love it or leave it fallacy
     
  14. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #14
    I'm pointing out that no one is forcing you to be in that circumstance of being searched. It is a result of a choice made in regards to traveling. It's like complaining going through security measures when one willingly decides to go see the president speak, see a sporing event, etc. What do you expect?

    Are you against all forms of security for airports? When hundreds of strangers are crammed into a machine that weighs thousands of tons going sub mach speeds, it is entirely within reason to take measures to minimize any risk.

    As far as current measures (to address the love it or leave it), I don't think they are invasive at all. Walking through a metal scanner or xray machine and taking off metal objects does not seem unreasonable.

    What do you propose?
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    This one is more ...

     
  16. thread starter Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #16
    Right, do what's necessary to secure liberty, not become secure by removing liberty.

    I'm in my car ill get back to you above ( sorry forgot who it was) tomorrow
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #17
    I travel quite frequently, and have never felt "invaded". I think it's a little dumb to have to take off shoes and that you can't take a drink through, but I've simply become accustomed to it, and it's just part of my routine. The whole process would be SO much easier if we didn't have idiot travelers who show up with big suitcases full of crap, 8 layers that they have to remove (was with one friend once who wore full lace-up goth boots which took like 5 minutes to take off), 14 pieces of jewelry, etc. If no one is in my way, I am through security in less than two minutes every time, and that includes unpacking and repacking my computer bag.

    I do have at least one friend who always bemoans "Felt up again at the airport...another groping at the airport...touched again at the airport" To which I finally responded: "What are you doing? I haven't been touched at an airport in years!" Her response was that she refuses to go through metal detectors or scanners. Well, then...no ****, you're going to get felt up. Stop bitching about it.
     
  18. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    People with implants have no choice but to get "felt up" at the airport. There is no reason to get molested in the name of security.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    Are you against police searches?
     
  20. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #20
    Only if there is probable cause, not just walking down the street and getting frisked. Why should everyone be treated as guilty? The same goes for the police wanting to search your car. If you say no they get a warrant and do it anyways even if there is no probable cause.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    Just checking.

    Because in your previous post you said "There is no reason to get molested in the name of security."

    Now we have established that there is at least one.
     
  22. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #22
    So why do they frisk every old lady at the airport? They seem to target the wrong people.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    An entirely other question indeed.

    But, would you argue that there should be no security measures?

    I doubt that you would.

    So somewhere between asking grandma to drop her drawers and letting everyone go through unchecked is the rational way to operate.
     
  24. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #24
    We never do anything proactive, it's always after the fact. The terrorists are always looking at ways to get around the TSA, then what even more restrictions? At what point do we all get locked into cages for our own protection.
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    I'm confused.

    You don't consider airport security checks to be "proactive"?
     

Share This Page