Starkist
05-06-2008, 08:14 PM
What is compelling enough for you to warrant trading some freedom?
Security From Terrorism:
This is the one we always hear about, and the one that dubious quotes are used to reference. Should we trade some of our freedom of movement if it means we are kept safe from terrorism? Is even the illusion of security worth the cost in freedom? Should we trade some freedom of speech if it means that the government will catch would-be terrorists before they kill anyone?
National Health Care:
It seems inevitable that the United States will soon have a national health care plan similar to Canada and other so-called progressive nations. As it stands right now, I can reject all insurance and trust in myself to provide financially if I get sick. If Senator Clinton enacts her plan, which is similar to several others in the works, the government would take money from my paycheck to pay for a national insurance system, just as it does for Social Security. Speaking of which...
A Retirement Safety Net:
This one is rather moot, since it is already in effect. But what do you think? Is it right that the government takes some of your money that you have earned and payed income tax on and doles it out to old people? None of us here have lived in a world without Social Security, but there was a time when people saved on their own. Even if I fully fund a 401K, IRA, and whatever else I need to ensure a comfortable retirement, I still must pay Social Security.
Automobile Insurance:
This is a similar situation. Right now in my state, Washington, I am required by law to purchase insurance. I do not have the freedom to drive without insurance. This is ironic, since I also have an insurance line called "Uninsured Motorist." Of course you can say that the government has every right to demand certain conditions before I use public roads, however, that can also be used to censor free speech over public airwaves.
Saving The Earth:
This is the big one. This is the one that garners mockery from certain people around here. Would you accept a government restriction on your travel in the name of reducing your so-called "carbon footprint" ? We already give up many freedoms when it comes to our own property: Here in Washington, certain wetlands prohibit development, and in King County the government can arbitrarily designate part of your land as environmentally protected, prohibiting development or sale. Is this an acceptable trade-off?
The Sensibilities Of Your Neighbours:
Will you accept restrictions on your speech so that you do not offend another ethnic or religious group? This is already the case in quite a few public universities. Will you accept restrictions on the use of your property if your neighbours complain? I read a news story today about a man in England who is being forced to remove a pirate flag from his house because his neighbours complained. Should the government be able to restrict speech, in any form, if it offends someone else?
So what price is your freedom worth? These options are just the tip of the iceberg. Opponents of the USA PATRIOT Act cry out against trading freedom for security. If that is the case, then is anything worth your freedom?
Security From Terrorism:
This is the one we always hear about, and the one that dubious quotes are used to reference. Should we trade some of our freedom of movement if it means we are kept safe from terrorism? Is even the illusion of security worth the cost in freedom? Should we trade some freedom of speech if it means that the government will catch would-be terrorists before they kill anyone?
National Health Care:
It seems inevitable that the United States will soon have a national health care plan similar to Canada and other so-called progressive nations. As it stands right now, I can reject all insurance and trust in myself to provide financially if I get sick. If Senator Clinton enacts her plan, which is similar to several others in the works, the government would take money from my paycheck to pay for a national insurance system, just as it does for Social Security. Speaking of which...
A Retirement Safety Net:
This one is rather moot, since it is already in effect. But what do you think? Is it right that the government takes some of your money that you have earned and payed income tax on and doles it out to old people? None of us here have lived in a world without Social Security, but there was a time when people saved on their own. Even if I fully fund a 401K, IRA, and whatever else I need to ensure a comfortable retirement, I still must pay Social Security.
Automobile Insurance:
This is a similar situation. Right now in my state, Washington, I am required by law to purchase insurance. I do not have the freedom to drive without insurance. This is ironic, since I also have an insurance line called "Uninsured Motorist." Of course you can say that the government has every right to demand certain conditions before I use public roads, however, that can also be used to censor free speech over public airwaves.
Saving The Earth:
This is the big one. This is the one that garners mockery from certain people around here. Would you accept a government restriction on your travel in the name of reducing your so-called "carbon footprint" ? We already give up many freedoms when it comes to our own property: Here in Washington, certain wetlands prohibit development, and in King County the government can arbitrarily designate part of your land as environmentally protected, prohibiting development or sale. Is this an acceptable trade-off?
The Sensibilities Of Your Neighbours:
Will you accept restrictions on your speech so that you do not offend another ethnic or religious group? This is already the case in quite a few public universities. Will you accept restrictions on the use of your property if your neighbours complain? I read a news story today about a man in England who is being forced to remove a pirate flag from his house because his neighbours complained. Should the government be able to restrict speech, in any form, if it offends someone else?
So what price is your freedom worth? These options are just the tip of the iceberg. Opponents of the USA PATRIOT Act cry out against trading freedom for security. If that is the case, then is anything worth your freedom?