Re: Liberty vs. Security
I think Posner made an interesting point with the EPA agency's decision making- we choose to allow a certain amount of death in our society in many ways- the setting of speed limits on roads- not wanting to pay for extra policing in the crime ridden areas- not wanting to pay for free yearly cancer checks on all members of society- but we do pay to fix potholes (which saves lives). we do mandate a special service regimen for jet engines that transport the public (which costs money). Our society is constantly weighing life and death, and making decisions about how much death is acceptable based on things like cost (if every car had an extra twenty grand in safety features how many thousands of lives would be saved every year?), ease of use ( we would rather drive 65 on the highways and have some extra people die than go slower)- the extra death is not enough to bother the majority of us. SO MY QUESTION TO JACK AND THOSE WHO APPLESAUCE HIS POSITION, which, ahem, I think his position is that even a few hundred mistaken deportations, or five year long stays in prison without being charged, or any of the other abridgments of what was previously our due process are essentially too much and really bad, and its just the start of us really getting clamped. Im about to get to my question- just about, but. We allow thousands of our own citizens to spend years and decades and lifetimes in prison because we as a society don't want to pay for truly excellent legal representation for those who can't afford it. its just to expensive. But, the suffering, rape, fear, etc in our mainland prisons is probably much worse than the highly controlled environment of Guantanamo. At the same time our own citizens that suffer this fate encouraged of poverty definitly have no plans of mass murder, anthrax, etc.- they are suffering unfairly and they don't pose a major threat to our society. we allow them to suffer in this way. Is this not an issue of civil liberties even more serious than unwarranted wiretapping of posible potential terrorist suspects?, or the deportation of non citizens who perhaps did nothing more than express some raw sentiment towards America while they were on the phone?. This is what I'm getting at- when was the last time you saw a story about heinous sexual abuse in our own prisons splashed across the news for days, and weeks, in excruciating detail?- are we really responding to the most important issues of our civil liberties (our common life) or are we responding to what's being fed to us? Maybe the lead paint we carelessly let slip by on our childrens toys has a deeper impact on our civil liberties (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)--- what about a poor bastard rotting in prison while a rich one goes free, or a brain damaged child, or someone who lost their family because we didn't want to spend an extra ten minutes on the drive to work, or someone susceptible to cancer who is surrounded by products containing mild carcinogens that mostly don't affect the majority of us. I feel like we're making this big deal about our "principles" that we really mouth about, and, we will gladly impale people on these words- "freedom" "liberty" "democracy" we will heartily burn them at the stake. But, - this stuff has been pounded into our heads since day one and we respond like a bunch of monkeys- look how Bush and his people have used these words to feed us a war- and our society ate it up. the real loss of civil liberties is for those hundreds of thousands of dead bastards. Are the Afgan women really loving their "freedom" right now?- maybe their more concerned with the civil liberties (like the right to live a normal life) of their sons and husbands. People start talking about liberty and freedom and we roll over- maybe we should start talking about "health" and "strength" and "thoughts". I'd like to dedicate this note to Jack, whose conversational technique is very, very ummm......hummph.
Last edited by joey; 01-11-2008 at 01:52 AM..
Reason: some bad english