« we like the cars, the cars that go boom | Main | if you want me all you have to do is ask a thousand questions »
i went numb when i learned to see
by mg at 04:14 PM on October 21, 2002
I love KD, but man do I have to disagree with her. She wrote:
those who would sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither
Actually, you are completely wrong about this. The Democracy is premised on the idea of the social contract; we give up certain rights in order to preserve certain others. This basic principle comes from The Social Contract, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
The Social Contract is the almost single handed inspiration of Thomas Jefferson, et al., in writing the Declaration of Independence and eventually the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Though it was John Locke, in The Second Treatise of Civil Government, who really developed the concept most fully, Rousseau was a contemporary of Jefferson’s, and discussed it entirely more eloquently. He wrote:
Each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is no associate over whom he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has.
In other words, being a member of a society requires you giving up certain things. For example, in order to be protected from people walking around and hitting us with 2x4s with rusted nails in them, we agree not to bilk old people of their money and pills. Generally speaking, what we get in return (health care, protection, and Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs) makes up for the things we lose (not being allowed to run over people who piss you off, touch children on their naughty bits).
But, as far as things go, Americans have it good. If you are a woman living in Saudi Arabia, it means you give up the right to… well, you give up all your rights really. But if you live in the United States… what rights do we exactly give up again?
comments (16)
I have more to say on this, but a) I don't want it to become a rant, and b) I have some actual work to get done today. More later, maybe.
by mg at October 21, 2002 4:16 PM
The problem comes when we start to give up freedoms so our own government can walk around hitting other people with 2x4s, I think. That's pretty much the way I see what's going on around here lately.
by drublood at October 21, 2002 4:25 PM
but what you're talking about are the regular, ordinary laws that are, well, regular and ordinary. not what i'm complaining about. i'm complaining about things like the 'patriot act', and more to the point, the things our government is doing right now in spite of our calls and letters, which overwhelmingly oppose this new power that's been given our Resident.
out of curiosity, did you read the article i linked a couple posts back from this one, the one by John Barlow? i'd like to point at that and say -- 'what he said'.
in case you don't have HTML enabled, this is the link:
http://www.xeni.net/images/boingboing/barlowfriendz_88_pox_americana.htm
by kd at October 21, 2002 4:44 PM
It's clear who was paying full attention in Social Studies class. mg, that's what makes you such a big dork. Unlike the cool kids, who were much more into math and physics.
BTW-
"But, as far as things go, Americans have it go."
We have it "go"? That doesnt even make sense.
by Eviltom at October 21, 2002 4:45 PM
in a completely unrelated note, am i like, fired or something? just for not posting for um, *mumble* months or so?
i promise to behave.
oooh! more unrelated stuff: you need one of those subscribe-to-comments scripty thingys. totally.
by kd at October 21, 2002 5:07 PM
I disagree that Americans "overwhelmingly oppose this new power that's been given our president."
I think if this were so, the overwhelming majority of Senators and Representatives wouldn't have allowed these bills to pass. Modern politicians are nothing if not completly spineless; they'd never vote for something their constituency was overwhelmingly against.
If anything, I'd say the people overwhelmingly favor a war on Iraq, which, I might add, is still not definite. We'll see on election day, though.
I did read the article you mention, and it is factually and logically wrong on a couple of points.
One, it presuposes that we've only been bombing Iraq since Bush took power. We have, in fact, been bombing Iraq almost continuously since the end of the Gulf War. Bombing Watch has documented U.N. sanctioned bombings of Iraq stretching back to March of 2000 (and say there are many more before that date). Our bombing policy hasn't change at all under Bush - we protect the U.N. marquated no fly-zone, and defend when fired upon.
Two, the shopkeeper analogy makes it seem as if Iraq has done noe wrong to warrant our interest. Forget gassing the Kurds, forget invading Kuwait, forget bombing Israel, forget all the bad things they've done in the past. They agreed to allow weapons inspectors in, and aren't. The U.N. is letting them get away with it, apparently affraid to play their role as peacekeepers and enforcers of international law. Iraq, everyday, is doing something wrong. This would be a real David and Goliath kind of war, but that just because Iraq is weaker than us doesn't make them the good guys and us the bad. Iraq is no innocent victim.
Three, well, there probably are more. But I'm really not a warblogger, and I'm not all that smart. But, I think the above are still two pretty good points.
On a completly unrelated note myself, I've had the strong suspicion over the last few weeks this is all just a show by the U.S. to make it clear that we will act if the U.N. doesn't. The U.N. has been completly inefectual in this situation, and I think merely the threat, something the U.N. seems unwilling to do, much less act on, is enough to get Iraq back in line.
As much as I'd support a war if there was one (especially now that I'm too old to be drafted), I'd obviously much rather prefer a peaceful solution. It's all about to Iraq now.
by mg at October 21, 2002 8:58 PM
first of all, as far as people who support the war, sixty-some-odd percent said yes to a very basic question -- do you want to bomb the bad guy? when you add in the small fact that this is going to be a ground war, fought block-by-block, and the estimated casualties are in the tens of thousands, that number drops to 30-something percent.
i still don't believe Iraq is an imminent threat. i still think there are far more pressing issues, which this war posturing is designed to obfuscate. i think that this posturing is partially motivated by the Bush family honor, partially by the desire to control the oil, and also to draw attention from the failed attemts to go get Bin Laden. i don't think Iraq is harboring terrorists any more than Saudi Arabia, or the rest of the middle east and let's not forget southeast asia and the phillipines ... it's a worldwide threat and we're talking about going after pieces of real estate.
... so, i really am fired, huh? *sigh*
by kd at October 21, 2002 10:55 PM
I think peeps tend to over estimate our enemies military might and underestimate their crazy factor. My friend is like some super secret black belt in kung foo, can defend himself in any fight. But he says the one thing he fears is a crazy person, you jsut can't defend against that. See September 11th for an example of a crazy offense. No defense. Iraq, thats going to be easy.
And see, this is the thing about the "war on terrorism." Terrorism isn't a place, or a person, it is an eviornment that causes people to hate one another, and have so little to live for themselves, that they are willing to give their lives to kill another. Outside of Northern Ireland, you don't really see that so much in democratic nations, or even in countries that don't actively work to keep their citizens down.
Iraq is such a country, and they are also actively seeking weapons capable of causing immense amounts of damage, and it is pretty obvious from the past that they aren't affraid to use it.
Are they the world's most imminent threat? No, probably not. Are they a threat? Definitely so. Should we wait until they've done something horrific? No (besides, they already have).
by mg at October 22, 2002 12:15 AM
Excellent, succinct post with well-balanced comments.
by zuchris at October 22, 2002 1:31 AM
I think I am going to become an anarchist. Then I won't feel so guilty because I won't be acknowledging my affiliation with any reckless superpower.
But then I couldn't buy sparkly eyeshadow or listen to Moby.
by Linz at October 22, 2002 10:32 AM
Anarchy is over rated. I like being able to rely on not getting beaten to a pulp on a daily basis. And TV. I'm actually, and this might suprise people, but I'm pretty much a socialist. Actually, I'm a Utilitarianist, but no one knows what that is (one part capitalism + one part socialism, stir in a little of the great republic, viola! utilitarianism).
by mg at October 22, 2002 1:35 PM
I'm with kd on the freedom for security point. She's in good company, since the quoted passage is a paraphrase of Benjamin Franklin. Perhaps you would find it less objectionable in the original?
'They that can give up essential freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I think that better captures the sentiment she's expressing. Clearly we give up a little freedom of (unfettered) action in order to maintain a society. But the trade-offs you suggest support this are specious. We do not trade our right to "bilk old people of their money and pills" for freedom from being hit with 2X4s. We have no such right. But when we sacrifice our essential freedom from unreasonable searches for the dubious freedom from the scourge of pot smokers (or, rather, the promised - eventually, one-day, any-time-now - removal of this substance from our societal fabric), we prove we don't deserve to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because we, as a society, have demonstrated the we don't understand what "reasonable" means.
I would dispute kd's poll numbers. I'm sure I would fail to agree with her on which of the expanded powers given to the Administration are ill-considered. But I agree 100% that such things as the roving wiretap authority and secret search warrants - which are merely two of the long-desired powers law enforcement was given by the USA PATRIOT Act that would not have helped prevent 9/11 - are bad trades of our liberty for (illusory) security.
by Dodd at October 22, 2002 1:36 PM
See, thanks Dodd, that word "essential" is, uh, essential to that quote. There are certain natural (unalienable) rights that everyone (at least those who live in democracies) possess. I don't know the provisions of the Patriot nearly as well as I should, and maybe if I did I'd be more upset. But as far as I can see, it doesn't effect my daily life in any way.
by mg at October 22, 2002 1:52 PM
well, the thing is, these broad powers being handed out, are right now being targeted more at specific racial/religious groups. however, since there are no limits on these powers, and they extend forever, there is the potential for future abuse. not just potential, but a strong likelihood.
the same with handing the president the power to attack at will -- he can just keep going, and although he claims not to want to use this power? i believe he will use, and abuse it.
here is an EFF summary of the patriot act. which i posted here i think, last January, when i posted something about wanting to help the EFF (i since blogathonned for them).
by kd at October 22, 2002 3:16 PM
Dodd rocks. Just let it be known that I think so.
by Linz at October 22, 2002 4:10 PM
Why thank you, Linz. I'm very flattered.
by Dodd at October 23, 2002 4:25 PM