BF2S Forums On "A Potential for Abuse"

Turquoise wrote:

I have one question for you: do you support smaller government?

usmarine wrote:

Spark wrote:

I personally prefer the government to get the fuck out of my life and let me be. What goes on privately should stay private.

That's just me though.

But what if it affects my life?

CommieChipmunk wrote:

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

usmarine wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

Funny the man you quote owned slaves.  Guess they deserved more than neither eh?

usmarine wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

Funny the man you quote owned slaves.  Guess they deserved more than neither eh?

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I have one question for you: do you support smaller government?

In general, yes. Our government is ridiculously bloated.

But national security is one of the powers specifically identified as a duty of the federal government.

While I agree with you on both of these things, I would argue that the Patriot Act does a better job of eliminating the privacy of law-abiding citizens than it does promoting national security.

I've said it before, but what good is security when your freedom is continually diminished by things like this?  The Patriot Act is a very slippery slope -- one that I can easily compare to gun control.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

In general, yes. Our government is ridiculously bloated.

But national security is one of the powers specifically identified as a duty of the federal government.

While I agree with you on both of these things, I would argue that the Patriot Act does a better job of eliminating the privacy of law-abiding citizens than it does promoting national security.

I've said it before, but what good is security when your freedom is continually diminished by things like this?  The Patriot Act is a very slippery slope -- one that I can easily compare to gun control.

It only takes steps to eliminate the privacy of citizens if they aren't law-abiding. That's the crux of the argument. Your calls aren't being monitored. Neither are mine. Unless one of us decides to call Waziristan or a satellite phone in Afghanistan and chat about jihad, infidels, bombs, and martyrdom...then they'll probably start monitoring.

FEOS wrote:

There have been many of late lambasting the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration. The arguments seem to focus around the potential for abuse that exists. Yet I don't see anyone concerned about other areas that have potential for abuse, but with much more severe consequences.

1. Police officers. They have loaded guns wherever they go. There is the potential that they can unload those guns into innocent people walking down the street! Where's the outcry?

2. The military. They have multi-million dollar weapon systems that can put several hundred pounds of heat, blast, and fragmentation on a gnat's ass. There is the potential that they could loose this power on the general public. Where's the outcry?

3. Truck drivers. They drive tens of tons of metal down the road at 60+ mph. There is the potential that they could just tear through neighborhoods, killing unsuspecting people in their homes! Where's the outcry?

Continue the list ad nauseum.

The answer to these questions is simple: There are checks and balances to ensure the potential abuse doesn't occur--just as with the Patriot Act and any other government programs. A potential for abuse does not equate to abuse actually occurring. If everyone is going to lose their damn minds about one policy or law that has a potential for abuse, without taking into account the checks that keep that abuse from occurring, then they must either suspend their logic in all cases that have the potential for abuse or admit they are...just maybe...taking things to a bit of an extreme.