Safety vs. Freedom (Natural Rights)
Those who would trade a freedom for a little security
will get neither, and
deserve neither
(Benjamin Franklin – sort of)
The purpose of government is to protect your Natural Rights, not to keep you safe. Reversing these is reversing cause and effect. If safety is your priority then the government should build big prisons and put everyone in them where they can protect them.
The safety (security) first goal is why we have no new vaccines, why we banned DDT and killed over 100 million people, why we don’t have nuclear power – resulting in the deaths of 10s of thousands of people. This is precautionary principle of Anthropomorphic Global Warming with the same disastrous results.
will get neither, and
deserve neither
(Benjamin Franklin – sort of)
The purpose of government is to protect your Natural Rights, not to keep you safe. Reversing these is reversing cause and effect. If safety is your priority then the government should build big prisons and put everyone in them where they can protect them.
The safety (security) first goal is why we have no new vaccines, why we banned DDT and killed over 100 million people, why we don’t have nuclear power – resulting in the deaths of 10s of thousands of people. This is precautionary principle of Anthropomorphic Global Warming with the same disastrous results.
PS don't forget we are in a interglacial warming period and have many hundreds of years before the next glaciation epoch.
We shall see the effects this unprincipled, pro-pharmaceutical company type of government policy has on vaccines from this point on. Vaccine makers still have their immunity from being sued for making harmful products, and with the December 2016 passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, they also get the freedom from supposedly onerous safety regulation that they wanted. I tend to agree with the people who are concerned that this imbalanced approach (tampering in the free market only to benefit drug manufacturers and not consumers) is not going to have good results for the consumers. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art...
And now government is taking that on?
It was the most effective way of getting rid of mice, the carriers of disease, that I know of. There were risks, of course, but any parent in her right mind knew how to avoid those risks. Now government has made it "safe" for you.
Those who do not, or are unable, (or unwilling) to understand this concept often confuse it with security (as provided by others, typically government) and seem to lack the desire for, or understanding of, personal freedom.
Security, (feeling safe) is more often than not related to how well one has adapted to, (and has knowledge of) his environment and his personal coping skill set
As to whether or not the Government has the authority to search, question, or detain people at the border. I agree that it is not explicitly detailed within the Constitution but I would argue that it can be implied via The Preamble by, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Searching incoming people at the boarders especially non-citizens would work towards these promises within The Preamble.
Anyone else see the irony?
Quite right. Good to hear from you. :)
Regards,
O.A.
On international flights, Customs could provide a list, pictures and biometrics to whatever agency is providing the security and Customs agents could be on site to take custody after security has identified someone on the list. I am most offended by the excessive scrutiny of citizens flying interstate. I can drive between states without impediment or violation of my rights by the government, but not so if I fly.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Load more comments...