Which is Greater: Freedom or Protection?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I had been thinking about this question a lot, and it came to mind in the legalizing drugs thread.

The question is simple: Which should we hold in a higher respect: Freedom or Protection? This is a big question recently (in USA, anyway) because of the PATRIOT Act. Should we give up freedoms to stop terrorists? Or will the government simply abuse that power?

But that isn't the real question I wanted to ask. Really, I want to look more at our criminal justice system. Should our laws be aimed at preventing crime, or punishing it? If we aim to prevent crime, we wind up limiting freedoms, and if we aim to punish crime, we don't do much to stop the crime from happening in the first place. Which is a more worthy cause?

I.E. Gun control- Should we limit the purchase of automatic, sniper, and concealable weapons in order to protect our citizens, or should we allow people the freedom to purchase them and punish those who abuse the right?

Also, drugs and alcohol: Should we ban drugs (and alcohol?) in order to stop people from becoming intoxicated and endangering others, or should we allow them and harshly punish those who cause problems while under the influence?

So often I hear people support gun control and no drug control- or vice versa, which really confuses me. If it doesn't derail the topic, I'd want to see some discussion of the differences in those issues.

Thoughts?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 650 • Replies: 15

No top replies

Well, the way I see it, at some point, we will give up so much freedom for protection, that we will lose our protection because the person we relinquished all the power to will have no rules to follow. A government with that kind of power simply isn't one to be trusted, as it probably has its eyes on some sort of imperialism by that point because they would officially have control of all industries, labor, and bodies they need.

That being said, we shouldn't be afraid to let go of some privileges at points in order to protect ourselves, we just have to watch just what we're giving up. For instance, what kind of terrorist needs to go to the library to learn how to make a bomb? They most likely have ally sources with all of that mapped out for them. And its a famous myth/rumor that the government taps phone lines, so why would come right out and talk about their mission? These kind of right restrictions make the assumptions that these are dumb people we're dealing with, and thats not the case. We should restrict things that are relevant to the threat, and return the rights when the threat is considered over.

I would say that in gun control, its better to restrict to begin with, as the threat is very large when allowing anyone to own a firearm. When it comes to certain drugs, we should do the same, but drugs like marijuana aren't much of a threat to our freedom or health. Like I said: all restrictions of rights should be relevant, and frankly, the ban on marijuana isn't, but a lock on the threatening and easily accessed firearm most certainly is.

Whenever you're adding or taking away any right it should be deeply considered for quite some time, because no law will more effect than one that relates to human rights.

0 Replies

What "rights" do you consider yourself to have? What the government gives you, or what you are "born with"? If you aren't born with rights, then isn't the government being nice to give you any at all? Maybe we should all view our rights as temporary things until threats arrive, not the other way around.

There is one right the government can never take away, and it is the only right that you are born with, no matter what: The Right to Choose. No matter what happens, you always have a choice, so in reality, is them restricting your "rights" actually restricting your rights?

Now, as for my own opinion: We should not restrict things, and when we do, we should put minimal restrictions on them. The more freedom people have, the happier they will be; the happier they are, the less need there is for crime. That's not to say someone won't extort the system, but let's face it: In the system we have now, we simply face a different kind of rule breakers. You can never stop people from disobeying, so why not have the most freedom possible?

0 Replies

Absolute freedom is Anarchy. That should be obvious enough. Most laws aren't aimed at preventing crime - they are aimed at punishing offenders. For most (not all) crimes, the threat of punishment is enough to prevent it from occurring.

There are two things to consider here. Individual rights and Community rights. The two need to be in balance, otherwise things get skewed.

A question : How does a law enforcement agency go about fighting crime for which no laws have been made against? And law enforcement, is almost always reactive (ie in virtually all cases, it can only react AFTER the offending action has been done). How then do you prevent, say, a terrorist strike?

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Absolute freedom is Anarchy.

Is that a bad thing? Too many people think the word "Anarchy" means chaos, but really it is a theoretical society (like Communism) that is perfect without a government. People associate it with chaos because it doesn't work, just like Communism.

vikorr wrote:

Most laws aren't aimed at preventing crime - they are aimed at punishing offenders. For most (not all) crimes, the threat of punishment is enough to prevent it from occurring.

Like you said, not all. And unlike when the laws are aimed at preventing the crime, someone will commit the crime anyway if they think they can get away with it if all you have is punishment. But that is why you can't hold back your police officers from doing their job- ie "Oh you looked under a blanket in my house without a warrant and found a bazooka! That can't be used as evidence against me in the subway explosion case!"

vikorr wrote:

A question : How does a law enforcement agency go about fighting crime for which no laws have been made against? And law enforcement, is almost always reactive (ie in virtually all cases, it can only react AFTER the offending action has been done). How then do you prevent, say, a terrorist strike?

You misunderstand- what you argue against is Anarchy, which I have admitted will not work. In a Libertarian society, there are still our fundamental laws, and they are still enforced just as harshly- but on the other hand, we won't restrict the purchase of drugs and guns (since when they're illegal people get them off the black market anyway and we waste resources trying to stop them) and we completely liberal on most if not all social matters, but also we allow a free market. Basically a hands off policy to give people optimum freedom.

So you must understand, we are not talking about a massive society reform- such things lead to chaos or fascism- neither of which end well. Police will have the ability to react adequately, perhaps even better than in society now, but on all other social matters, everyone has all the rights they could ever need.

0 Replies

Quote:

You misunderstand- what you argue against is Anarchy, which I have admitted will not work

Hi Foley

No, I didn't misunderstand. My question is quite pertinent to your topic of 'protection laws', for it is the question that the US government faced after 9-11.

Civilian (police enforced) laws have almost always, by nature, been re-active (ie almost useless at preventing terrorism)...and as the threat occurred within US borders, my understanding is the army couldn't legally deal with it (and probably no one would argue the military would do the best job of investigating the matter anyway).

Further, the US military captured a whole heap of known terrorists/suspects. The standard of proof would never hold up in a civilian law court, and they weren't soldiers of an enemy state whom they could hold until the end of a war (that's if vague memory serves me right - I remember there was some legal problem with detaining these people) - do they just release these people to go their own way?

Bascially they had no legal power to hold these people. They weren't part of an acknowledged war (until the US said they were - the war on terror), and they don't fit the definition of Prisoners of War as set down by the Geneva Convention (hence why they are classified as non enemy combatants). So the US is fighting a war without where every enemy isn't an enemy (according to the Geneva Convention).

Which lead to Guantanamo Bay, and probably to your Patriot Act (I don't know too much about it, just that it caused an uproar in a lot of places over there).

In Australia, they introduced new legislation, but the main legislative change involved the changing of just one word. They changed 'planning the terrorist attack' to 'planning a terrorist attack' (so they do not have to prove what 'the' terrorist attack would be, just that one was being planned).

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

No, I didn't misunderstand. My question is quite pertinent to your topic of 'protection laws', for it is the question that the US government faced after 9-11.

Civilian (police enforced) laws have almost always, by nature, been re-active (ie almost useless at preventing terrorism)...and as the threat occurred within US borders, my understanding is the army couldn't legally deal with it (and probably no one would argue the military would do the best job of investigating the matter anyway).

I'm probably being confusing, playing devil's advocate like this. Questions I ask aren't rhetorical, so sometimes I don't even believe what it looks like I'm arguing.

That said, I agree. The police should be reactive, not taking away freedoms beforehand. But we have to remember people's 'rights'- if they don't have those, then the point of government is worthless. Terrorists are very difficult to deal with, I concede, simply because of the legal implications- you have to be able to detain them, but the people have to be able to trust that the government won't abuse its powers over people.

vikorr wrote:

Further, the US military captured a whole heap of known terrorists/suspects. The standard of proof would never hold up in a civilian law court, and they weren't soldiers of an enemy state whom they could hold until the end of a war (that's if vague memory serves me right - I remember there was some legal problem with detaining these people) - do they just release these people to go their own way?

The "standard proof"? Innocent until proven guilty. If we think they did it, then we're just riding a hunch. We need evidence. If we don't have proof, then we have to let them go. In the UK the police shot a Brazilian man- and he was a complete innocent. I will never support something like that. If I have to let terrorists go, so be it. I'd rather not punish a guilty man than punish an innocent one.

vikorr wrote:

...until the US said they were - the war on terror...

Actually, our Congress never declared war. Our fascist leader took the liberty of doing that for us!

vikorr wrote:

Which lead to Guantanamo Bay, and probably to your Patriot Act (I don't know too much about it, just that it caused an uproar in a lot of places over there).

Allow me to explain it to you.
You=No freedom of speech, assembly, or expression.
Government=Ability to detain you indefinitely on a hunch.
(In the name of security, of course.)

The government has no right to take away the rights of the people to protect the people- that is self contradictory. If the people demand action, then act. But never become proactive in a situation where you must limit others' freedom without their consent.

0 Replies

Hi Foley

Just a couple of observations :

Quote:

The "standard proof"? Innocent until proven guilty

No, the standard of proof : ie. Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Quote:

Actually, our Congress never declared war. Our fascist leader took the liberty of doing that for us!

The effect is still the same.

As an aside observation : I once asked some Americans to explain just what the office of your Presidency entailed. When they finished I noted "He sounds like an elected King" (if you are familiar with the English system when centuries back when the there was a power balance between King and Parliament). For some reason this upset them (from the point of view they didn't think it was anything like an elected King), but the more they tried to explain it, the stronger the impression I got that I was right (except that the President in some ways had more power - being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces). Of course, I could be wrong...it's hard getting any decent/simple explanation of what your law enforcement agencies, and parliament/congress/senate do.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

No, the standard of proof : ie. Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Who determines what is reasonable? I refuse to punish until I am sure-though that may change some time, who knows.

vikorr wrote:

The effect is still the same.

As an aside observation : I once asked some Americans to explain just what the office of your Presidency entailed. When they finished I noted "He sounds like an elected King" (if you are familiar with the English system when centuries back when the there was a power balance between King and Parliament). For some reason this upset them (from the point of view they didn't think it was anything like an elected King), but the more they tried to explain it, the stronger the impression I got that I was right (except that the President in some ways had more power - being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces). Of course, I could be wrong...it's hard getting any decent/simple explanation of what your law enforcement agencies, and parliament/congress/senate do.

You're 100% right. That's why this system of "Checks and Balances" is a load of bullshit and needs to be fixed- We don't even vote for our supreme court judges!

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
vikorr wrote:
No, the standard of proof : ie. Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Who determines what is reasonable? I refuse to punish until I am sure-though that may change some time, who knows.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here.

I was saying that it would be very hard to get a conviction on many terrorists, and most notably for those people detained in Guantanamo Bay if they were tried in a (civilian) criminal court.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt is the Standard of Proof required to obtain a guilty verdict in a criminal court. In a case of alleged terrorism, a jury would decide if the evidence presented proved that the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt (ie. "We the jury, find the defendant guilty")

Balance of Probabilities is the Standard of Proof required in a civil court.

I'm not sure what the Standard of Proof is in a Military Court, but it's not 'beyond reasonable doubt' (hence why the US government wants to try the Guantanamo Bay detainee's in a military court, and not a criminal court)

There should always be checks and balances applied to any new law.
I think it's fair enough that people should have concerns over the legal processes that have been turned upside in the US in recent years. I would not be happy had what I know of them happened on Australian soil.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here.

I was saying that it would be very hard to get a conviction on many terrorists, and most notably for those people detained in Guantanamo Bay if they were tried in a (civilian) criminal court.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt is the Standard of Proof required to obtain a guilty verdict in a criminal court. In a case of alleged terrorism, a jury would decide if the evidence presented proved that the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt (ie. "We the jury, find the defendant guilty")

Balance of Probabilities is the Standard of Proof required in a civil court.

I'm not sure what the Standard of Proof is in a Military Court, but it's not 'beyond reasonable doubt' (hence why the US government wants to try the Guantanamo Bay detainee's in a military court, and not a criminal court)

There should always be checks and balances applied to any new law.
I think it's fair enough that people should have concerns over the legal processes that have been turned upside in the US in recent years. I would not be happy had what I know of them happened on Australian soil.

No, we're talking about the same thing, but "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", even in civil court, is still far too open to interpretation- ie If the Jury is simply full of close minded idiots who are conviction hungry, they'll find them guilty because, among them, there was no "Reasonable Doubt". I do not like the idea. Innocent until proven guilty is a much better way to run things. I don't believe in "Military Court" either- that's just a way to convict people of things when you do not have enough evidence. The military is still part of the country.

I will not support a court system that has any loopholes- the rights of the people come first, always.

0 Replies

Quote:

the rights of the people come first, always

And that essentially is the problem in a world where terrorism exists. The 'rights of the people' include two parts : The rights of the community, and the rights of the individual. Neither is greater or lesser than the other. They should be in balance.

In this case, we are talking about the right of the community to live in peace and safety, vs the right of the individual not to suffer uneccesary and unjust intrusion by the government, and the right of the individual to innocence until proven guilty.

In a world where terrorism may exist on a massive scale, and is unable to be effectively/efficiently prevented by current means, what then is the answer?

Well, to partly answer my own question, I don't believe the answer is to introduce radical new powers with no checks whatsoever (that goes against what I think about balance).

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

In a world where terrorism may exist on a massive scale, and is unable to be effectively/efficiently prevented by current means, what then is the answer?

Well, to partly answer my own question, I don't believe the answer is to introduce radical new powers with no checks whatsoever (that goes against what I think about balance).

Well, the problem is, no matter what you do, people will be unhappy/dead. Like what you said about the balances, if we went to the extreme to ensure the community was safe, everyone would hate it and revolt. On the other hand, Anarchy would lead to the community being completely exposed.

But what are we to do? The world is a violent place. I don't believe there is any way to defeat terrorism, and because of that I believe that we should simply let the people have more freedom. I'm not talking something radically different, just a more Libertarian society, rather than extreme right vs extreme left.