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.
I have long been in favor of eliminating the FDA, EPA and most of the other illegal government agencies that exist. It is a difficult argument to win. Nancy Pelosi was asked about Trumps pick for SCOTUS. She reflexively went to fear mongering. She said that he would dirty the air and water, take away womens rights, make children less safe...and on and on. Fear and insecurity are effective weapons for Progressives and when you throw in the press as an accomplice it's hard to convince people that freedom and liberty are superior to any alternative.
That's why a smiling and wide-eyed Princess Pelosi called that recent swarm of illegals from Mexico "an opportunity." Never mind that illegals can be infiltrated by even more illegal criminals and terrorists.
Increased empowering votes are more important to Dem politicians than what can happen to innocent people.
.
I get natural rights (individuals enter society with certain rights that no government has the right to deny). I also get that we live in a world with boundaries, political and personal. Ignoring those pesky unnatural boundaries is a great way to get yourself hurt or worse.
I would suggest filtering people who want to become citizens is more important than filtering law abiding people's travel. If people travel across boarders and they break the law, they need to pay the price. And the price should be stiff for non citizens especially for harming American citizens. But if we allow people to become citizens that don't want to assimilate to the values of America, the American citizen is the one paying the price in the devaluation of their country. This holds true for any & every country in my opinion.
I agree about the filtering external people wishing to come in more so than those within wishing to travel internally. I'm also very much opposed to national ID and very much for stiffer penalties for harm to US citizens by those "visiting" this country in any capacity prior to deportation.
Quite right. Good to hear from you. :)
Regards,
O.A.
Maybe we should have 2 levels of security on international flights. The first for Customs and then again for the airline in question. Customs would screen for those undesirables (terrorist and such) and then the airlines could have whatever security they each individually desired.
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.
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.
With this being said, I would like to point out that the Soros-funded protests that destroy and pillage our small business communities are just as much (if not more) a threat to the safety and preservation of our rights as any foreign threats that we may encounter. Your comments are appreciated, however they may come.
Welcome to The Gulch.
I'd like to point out that a handful of non-citizens can do very bad things.
Flying passenger jets into buildings and killing 3,000 people is the most extreme example so far . . . so far . . . so far . . .
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
Anyone else see the irony?
That's what we call both freedom and security down here in Alabama.
Oh, yeah, locking doors can really help.
And pay attention to who is around you.
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...
PS don't forget we are in a interglacial warming period and have many hundreds of years before the next glaciation epoch.
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.
And now government is taking that on?
Yes!
[Sarcasm]If it saves even one child, then we must do it.[/Sarcasm]