- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,974
- Reaction score
- 69,055
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
This sounds like a slippery slope argument. It reminds of when people say, "If we let the gays get married, then soon, we'll be letting people get married to animals". In my experience, most people in the United States value their freedom. They get pissed when the government restricts where they can protest, they get pissed when the government restricts their gun use and so on. People are very much aware of what government control at the level of places like Cuba entails. Not having a problem with TSA security in a specific venue does not suggest, in any sense, that people need to go to Cuba to understand what 'the other side' is like and to stand up for their rights when they feel that they are being usurped.
Not so much slippery slope as measured history. We've seen the course of government time and time again; particularly government which grows outside the bounds of the People. There is no history of same sex marriage the likes there is the natural course of government.
What we have here is a disagreement on what 'reasonable' in the 4th amendment means. I think most people in the United States would agree that many actions by the Cuban government go far past 'reasonable'. However, it is entirely understandable that people would have different interpretations of reasonable when it comes to airport security.
Perchance, but there is still an absolute. And I fear that we've lost our will to fight for it. Rather so long as our tomorrow can be the same as today, we'll allow government to do anything; including its gross expansion and exercised force against us. TSA goes too far on a lot of the regulation and searches. There was no need for another government agency after 9/11. We had a system already in place and it could have sufficed; TSA was unnecessary.