• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patriot Act: Liberty for Security

Did you / Do you use that argument?


  • Total voters
    20
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?

I've stated something similar in the past. Demanding that we sacrifice our freedom for the appearance of safety is simply idiotic, and ultimately defeats its own purpose. Giving more power to departments like Homeland Security and the BATFE only empowers them, and they will do anything to stay on top, and in control.
 
liberty is everything .when you have this ,you can have everything too.
 
liberty is everything .when you have this ,you can have everything too.

I disagree. I would be more likely to agree if I felt that there was even a shred of common decency, morality, OR values left in the American citizenry at this point in time. I don't believe there is any amount of even one of those three things left in this country's residents at this point in history; and unfortunately this weekend's news stories shows that quite well.

Liberty is only truly useful when one can be trusted to do the Right Things with it.
 
As a PROPONENT of the Patriot Act the phrase does not support my side of the discussion, so why would I use it?

You shouldn't just pick and choose what supports your side, you should base your side on the facts, your side of the discussion should be contingent on reason and facts, not the otherway around.

I disagree. I would be more likely to agree if I felt that there was even a shred of common decency, morality, OR values left in the American citizenry at this point in time. I don't believe there is any amount of even one of those three things left in this country's residents at this point in history; and unfortunately this weekend's news stories shows that quite well.

Liberty is only truly useful when one can be trusted to do the Right Things with it.

There NEVER WAS a golden age of common decency/morality or whatever.
 
I disagree. I would be more likely to agree if I felt that there was even a shred of common decency, morality, OR values left in the American citizenry at this point in time. I don't believe there is any amount of even one of those three things left in this country's residents at this point in history; and unfortunately this weekend's news stories shows that quite well.

Liberty is only truly useful when one can be trusted to do the Right Things with it.

in fact sometimes i cant decide whether the liberty is more important or not ,because it may depend on some conditions.yes i care about liberty and consider it indisputable must .if somebody is trying to harm you ,you cant have freedom unless you get rid of that threat
 
Yes, I have used the quote in the past and will likely do so in the future. It is a bit hyperbolic because sometimes a tradeoff IS justified. But the increase in security had better be pretty damn substantial to justify even a slight reduction in liberty. That goes for things like the Patriot Act. Things like the TSA. Things like gun control.
 
You shouldn't just pick and choose what supports your side, you should base your side on the facts, your side of the discussion should be contingent on reason and facts, not the otherway around.

My viewpoint is based on Morality, Values, and what I believe Right and Wrong to be. Whether the facts support my beliefs or not is irrelevant so far as I'm concerned.

There NEVER WAS a golden age of common decency/morality or whatever.

I would tend to disagree.

in fact sometimes i cant decide whether the liberty is more important or not ,because it may depend on some conditions.yes i care about liberty and consider it indisputable must .if somebody is trying to harm you ,you cant have freedom unless you get rid of that threat

Obviously there has to be a middle ground. I would suggest that there are some ESSENTIAL Liberties that should not be given up for the sake of safety. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for example. However, to suggest that there is no level of Liberty which should be sacrificed in the name of Safety is utterly stupid so far as I'm concerned.
 
I disagree. I would be more likely to agree if I felt that there was even a shred of common decency, morality, OR values left in the American citizenry at this point in time. I don't believe there is any amount of even one of those three things left in this country's residents at this point in history; and unfortunately this weekend's news stories shows that quite well.

Liberty is only truly useful when one can be trusted to do the Right Things with it.

Does that mean you're OK with someone else deciding what the Right Things are, and forcing you to do them, or does it mean that you want to be the one deciding and forcing others to do them?

Usually, when someone is arguing that liberty is not important, they're talking about someone else's liberty. Perhaps you're different.
 
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?

Not that quote, but the line of logic yes. I've often stated that free is not safe and never meant to be safe, we shall never be "safe" as long as we're free. To yield freedom to "security" is foolish and can leave you with neither.
 
Not that quote, but the line of logic yes. I've often stated that free is not safe and never meant to be safe, we shall never be "safe" as long as we're free. To yield freedom to "security" is foolish and can leave you with neither.

Exactly.

Moreover, there is no such thing as total safety. There is always a risk to everything.

I like to calculate my own odds, make my own decisions, and live with the consequences of those decisions, but, then that's just me. Others seem to want to have Big Brother telling them what to do and what not to do.
 
Does that mean you're OK with someone else deciding what the Right Things are, and forcing you to do them, or does it mean that you want to be the one deciding and forcing others to do them?

Some of both. I am a believer in a concept called Universal Morality, which I believe should be the basis for all government and laws; whether I like/agree with all of it or not.
 
Some of both. I am a believer in a concept called Universal Morality, which I believe should be the basis for all government and laws; whether I like/agree with all of it or not.

So, if I'm the arbitrator of that universal morality, and I say that you are to obey your wife, let her make all of the important decisions in your life because that's the moral thing to do, then you'd be OK with it?
 
So, if I'm the arbitrator of that universal morality, and I say that you are to obey your wife, let her make all of the important decisions in your life because that's the moral thing to do, then you'd be OK with it?

If one were to assume it worked that way, then it would be time for me to eat that specially made bullet on my dresser. There is always another option when one does not agree with the rules of society.

Now, thankfully Universal Morality doesn't need an arbitor... it has several THOUSAND years of history to back it up; but I think we both made our point.
 
If one were to assume it worked that way, then it would be time for me to eat that specially made bullet on my dresser. There is always another option when one does not agree with the rules of society.

Now, thankfully Universal Morality doesn't need an arbitor... it has several THOUSAND years of history to back it up; but I think we both made our point.

No it doesn't Morality varies culture to culture, people to people. I think it's very evident from thousands of years of history that there is no such thing as a "universal morality" and what we believe is moral and immoral changes over time. As such, you shall need an arbitrator.
 
No it doesn't Morality varies culture to culture, people to people. I think it's very evident from thousands of years of history that there is no such thing as a "universal morality" and what we believe is moral and immoral changes over time. As such, you shall need an arbitrator.

When one steps back and takes a look at the core principles of the major societies, cultures, and spiritual movements which humanity has brought forth in the last 4000-5000 years, you tend to find that there is not a huge amount of difference. It is those commonalities in the vast majority of those institutions which forms Universal Morality, Ikari.
 
yes folks, we ALL sacrifice freedom for security.

everytime you stop at a STOP sign, every time you wait for a walk signal at a cross-walk, every time you wait on line to buy something, every time you follow ANY law, you sacrifice a little freedom for a little security.
 
When one steps back and takes a look at the core principles of the major societies, cultures, and spiritual movements which humanity has brought forth in the last 4000-5000 years, you tend to find that there is not a huge amount of difference. It is those commonalities in the vast majority of those institutions which forms Universal Morality, Ikari.

Name them. Demonstrate their universal behavior cross culture. Hell, what was acceptable morality 100's (not even 1000's) of years ago is not acceptable now. Our "morality" is constantly being refined and it still does differ culture to culture to this very day.

Demonstrate your universal morality.
 
The trouble with measures like the Patriot Act was that we gave up liberty (a lot or a little can be argued, but I say a lot) for no actual security. We went nuts over the terrorist boogeymen when we should have just laughed in their faces. We are the mighty United States of America. They're a bunch of dicks hiding in caves, buying our secondhand weapons from a generation ago. There is literally nothing that Al Qaeda can do or could have done to destroy this country, unless we wallow in our fear and do it for them.
 
The trouble with measures like the Patriot Act was that we gave up liberty (a lot or a little can be argued, but I say a lot) for no actual security.....

really? our security hasn't been increased due to the PATRIOT Act?

prove it.
 
The trouble with measures like the Patriot Act was that we gave up liberty (a lot or a little can be argued, but I say a lot) for no actual security.

That's because the vast majority of Americans don't know what actual SECURITY is, and wouldn't like it even if they DID know what it is.
 
The trouble with measures like the Patriot Act was that we gave up liberty (a lot or a little can be argued, but I say a lot) for no actual security. We went nuts over the terrorist boogeymen when we should have just laughed in their faces. We are the mighty United States of America. They're a bunch of dicks hiding in caves, buying our secondhand weapons from a generation ago. There is literally nothing that Al Qaeda can do or could have done to destroy this country, unless we wallow in our fear and do it for them.

Certainly not on any aggregate scale. The probabilities involved have not decreased significantly. Terrorism is still a low probability event, it was before and it is now. The aggregate effect we DO have is an increased amount of government force and intervention in our daily lives.

That's the real difference between terrorism and government. Terrorism may affect you eventually given enough time. Government WILL affect you.
 
really? our security hasn't been increased due to the PATRIOT Act?

prove it.

I should reiterate. We are no safer because of it. Terrorism has always been a minute risk in our lives. More people die by suicide in this country, this year, last year, 1970, and 2001, than do by terrorist acts. You are more hazardous to your life than Al Qaeda is.
 
for no actual security.

Wow...really? Tell me this is hyperbole and you aren't being serious. You truly believe that no aspect what so ever of the Patriot Act has been used in such a way that it provided additional security for an American that would've likely not occured or occured in the same time span had PATROIT not existed?

Note, all changes by PATROIT are not 100% relegated to Terrorist activities. A large portion of the law upgraded general survellience laws found in Title III of the 1968 OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Street acts and in the FIS Act. Those acts didn't apply JUST to terrorists. For example, expanding wiretapping laws to expliciately state how they work with email...something previously not found in such laws....was something updated in PATRIOT.
 
Last edited:
Wow...really? Tell me this is hyperbole and you aren't being serious. You truly believe that no aspect what so ever of the Patriot Act has been used in such a way that it provided additional security for an American that would've likely not occured or occured in the same time span had PATROIT not existed?

I'm sure you can provide us with the data that shows significant and statistically resolved decrease in "danger" due solely to the Patriot Act, yes?

If not, I have a rock that does exactly the same thing, I'll sell it to you for 50K.
 
Wow...really? Tell me this is hyperbole and you aren't being serious. You truly believe that no aspect what so ever of the Patriot Act has been used in such a way that it provided additional security for an American that would've likely not occured or occured in the same time span had PATROIT not existed?

Note, all changes by PATROIT are not 100% relegated to Terrorist activities. A large portion of the law upgraded general survellience laws found in Title III of the 1968 OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Street acts and in the FIS Act. Those acts didn't apply JUST to terrorists. For example, expanding wiretapping laws to expliciately state how they work with email...something previously not found in such laws....was something updated in PATRIOT.

Some provisions of the PATRIOT act were useful, but not the ones that violate civil liberties. 9/11 didn't happen because the feds were prevented from getting a warrant on the suspects. Non-controversial changes like improving inter-agency co-operation could have made the difference.

Much of the argument on security is based on the entirely unsupported idea that repressive and immoral techniques are actually more effective. The truth is that torture isn't any better than other forms of interrogation, getting a warrant is not a impediment to legitimate investigations and molesting airplane passengers is entirely pointless.
 
Back
Top Bottom