-—>> “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759”
_____________________________________
Sure, it’s easy for you to post the great quotation by Ben Franklin and think you’ve won the debate, but how does that apply to cases like not being able to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater. That’s “against the law” but you need to ask yourself the question: Is being able to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theater and “essential liberty?”
Under your logic, if you don’t mind that law, then you, too, “deserve neither liberty nor safety” per your own Ben Franklin quote.
The key question you need to ask when applying the famous Ben Franklin quote is: “Is the right to board a flight without being screened for security an ‘essential liberty’ as Franklin calls it?”
I say no, given the world we’re in with fuel-laden 747’s able to be used as bombs against us.
Again, I’m not trying to be controversial here, I’m just trying to figure out just what it is that the anti-TSA people desperately want to accomplish and why they choose that to be such a pivotal issue when there are so many other key “essential liberty” issues — such as Obamacare — to devote your energy to.
Furthermore, I’d like to see the anti-TSA people offer a better alternative.
One of the replies to my post here suggested doing racial/cultural profiling (of Muzzigers) and I agree that would be much more effective than screening little old ladies and children.
So that’s a start, but if you guys are suggesting NO AIRPORT SCREENING at all, that’s just too risky in today’s world. Unacceptable.
So, once again, guys, please tell me your proposed alternative to today’s TSA-based system. If you do answer NO AIRPORT SCREENING at all, then you fit squarely in the nutjob category in my book.
cc: takenoprisoner;darrellmaurina
AlanGreenSpam,
Perhaps ,before going off on an anti ‘NO AIRPORT SCREENING’ rant you re-read and think about the following posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2836794/posts?page=82#82
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2836794/posts?page=83#83
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2836794/posts?page=87#87
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2836794/posts?page=89#89
Then count me in the nutjob category please.
And BTW, I'll take Ben Franklin over the liberal "progressive " Oliver Wendell Holmes any day---the very same guy who supported forced sterilization in Carrie Buck vs. Virginia.
Getting rid of an opressive, malicious, federal union thug entity that is supressing air travel and violating the rights and freedoms of US citizens.
I’d like to see the anti-TSA people offer a better alternative.
Ok, let's have the airports provide a private security service.
One of the replies to my post here suggested doing racial/cultural profiling (of Muzzigers) and I agree that would be much more effective than screening little old ladies and children.
They need to do conduct criminal profiling, more specifically, terrorist profiling and leave normal American citizens the hell alone.
...if you guys are suggesting NO AIRPORT SCREENING at all, that’s just too risky in today’s world.
That's ridiculous, they need to ID the would be murderers. Why should moslems even be allowed on planes? They are the enemy of a free society.
Actually it is. You see, the whole "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" argument is just justification for abridging your right to speech under the guise of 'safety.' In fact it carves out a whole class of exceptions which has been expanded to include things like 'hate-speech.'
The correct response to the problem of "shout fire in a crowded theater" is to allow the shouter to be liable for damages incurred from his speech in the case that there wasn't any fire (or reasonable cause to believe there was one).
The reason that the above solution is repugnant to the Statist is because it does not hand over more power to the state.